search  
 


Home

Who are we?

Why
register?


Signup for
registration


Online registration

Log in to register
your trial


Search a trial

NRT en CCMO

Contact

NEDERLANDS





MetaRegister
van CCT (UK)


ISRCTN-Register
van CCT (UK)


Target for improvement: A cluster randomized trial of public involvement in quality indicator prioritization.


- candidate number8395
- NTR NumberNTR2496
- ISRCTNISRCTN wordt niet meer aangevraagd.
- Date ISRCTN created
- date ISRCTN requested
- Date Registered NTR31-aug-2010
- Secondary IDsCHS-2160 Canadian Health Services
- Public TitleTarget for improvement: A cluster randomized trial of public involvement in quality indicator prioritization.
- Scientific TitleTarget for improvement: A cluster randomized trial of public involvement in quality indicator prioritization.
- ACRONYM
- hypothesisWe hypothesize that public involvement results in greater agreement between quality indicator choice and public priorities.
- Healt Condition(s) or Problem(s) studiedChronic disorder, Prevention, Management, Public involvement
- Inclusion criteria1. Public representatives:
A. Be 18 year old or older;
B. Live within the catchment area of a participating site;
C. Have a good capacity for sharing opinions with others.
2. Professionals:
A. Work as a clinician or manager in relation with the prevention or management of chronic diseases;
B. Work within the catchment area of a participating health authority;
C. Have a good capacity for sharing opinions with others.
3. Decision-maker: person identified by the director-general of a local health authority to advise him/her on the choice of quality indicator.
- Exclusion criteriaPublic representative: Be currently or previously working as a health professional or health manager.
- mec approval receivedyes
- multicenter trialno
- randomisedyes
- masking/blindingNone
- controlActive
- groupParallel
- Type2 or more arms, randomized
- Studytypeintervention
- planned startdate 1-feb-2010
- planned closingdate1-feb-2011
- Target number of participants200
- InterventionsIn intervention sites, public representatives participate in a one-day deliberation meeting on quality indicator prioritization along with clinicians and managers. In control groups, quality indicator prioritization is conducted only by clinicians and managers, without public representative involvement.
- Primary outcomeOur primary outcome will assess the impact of public involvement on quality indicator choice and agreement with public priorities.
- Secondary outcome1. Decision-makers' intention to use the indicators;
2. Financial cost of the intervention;
3. Process evaluation will be conducted throughout the trial to explain results, through direct observation of meetings, videorecording of discussions, and assessment of participants' experience.
- TimepointsParticipants’ priorities will be collected at baseline, after deliberation, and at a decision-makers’ meeting held at the end of the trial (planned for nov-dec 2010).
- Trial web siteN/A
- statusopen: patient inclusion
- CONTACT FOR PUBLIC QUERIES Antoine Bolvin
- CONTACT for SCIENTIFIC QUERIES Antoine Bolvin
- Sponsor/Initiator Radboud University Scientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare
- Funding
(Source(s) of Monetary or Material Support)
Canadian Health Services Research Foundation
- PublicationsN/A
- Brief summaryBackground:
Quality indicators can be used for setting measurable targets for improvement, to monitor and report results, and to ensure that quality improvement activities tackle the most pressing areas for change. Public deliberation have been proposed as a way to integrate lay and expert knowledge, and to increase responsiveness to public expectations and needs, but have not been studied in the context of quality indicator (QI) prioritization.

Objective:
To study the impact of public involvement on quality indicator prioritization.

Design:
Cluster randomized controlled trial.

Method:
In preparation for the trial, we developed a 37-item “menu” of quality indicators for chronic disease prevention and management in primary care, based on a systematic review of existing validated indicator sets. Participating sites (n=6) will be pair-matched and randomized in intervention sites (with public involvement) and control sites (without public involvement). Public representatives will be involved through a structured survey and through participation in a deliberative meeting with clinicians and managers. In control sites, clinicians and managers will prioritize quality indicators among themselves.

Data collection and outcome measures:
Participants’ priorities will be collected at baseline, after deliberation, and at a decision-makers’ meeting held at the end of the trial. Our primary outcome will assess the impact of public involvement on quality indicator choice and agreement with public priorities. We will also collect data on decision-makers’ intention to use the indicators, financial costs of the intervention, and on the public involvement process.

Discussion and expected results:
We hypothesize that public involvement results in greater agreement between quality indicator choice and public priorities. We pilot tested our intervention with 9 public representatives and 8 professionals. Our pilot project demonstrated the feasibility of the intervention and suggested ways to improve the menu of indicators, intervention format, and measurement tools.
- Main changes (audit trail)
- RECORD31-aug-2010 - 16-sep-2010


  • Indien u gegevens wilt toevoegen of veranderen, kunt u een mail sturen naar nederlands@trialregister.nl