PainNCT02236949
Sustainability of a Knowledge Translation Intervention to Improve Paediatric Pain
A study testing Pain Practice Change Booster Intervention in people with Pain, run by The Hospital for Sick Children at 7 sites in Canada.
Trial summary
The purpose of this research study is to evaluate the effectiveness of short refresher sessions. "Pain Practice Change Boosters" given at regular intervals to sustain improved pain process (assessment and management) and clinical outcomes (pain intensity) achieved during a 15 month knowledge translation intervention… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Any ageHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Pain
- What is being tested?
- Pain Practice Change Booster Intervention
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 3,907 participants
- Where
- 7 sitesCanada
- Study dates
- Sep 2011to Jun 2014
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages Any age
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Hospitals met the following inclusion criteria in at least four patient care units:
- distinct geographic location and administrative structure;
- minimum of 15 beds per unit;
- care for children exposed to painful procedures for diagnostic or therapeutic purposes; and
- implementation of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions to manage pain.
- The 16 participating hospital units had implemented the EPIQ intervention in the CIHR Team in Children's Pain study. Patients in the participating hospital units were eligible to be included in the determination of the pain practice and clinical outcomes if they:
Show all 10Show fewer
- were between 32 weeks gestational age at birth and 18 years;
- received skin breaking procedures; and
- were admitted to the unit for >24 hours.
- Surveys used to determine factors influencing sustainability were administered to health care professionals in all participating units, who had at least 1 year of professional experience, had worked on the unit for at least 6 months, and spoke English or French.
Who cannot join
None listed.
Trial locations and contacts
7 sites in 1 country.
7 sites in 1 country
Canada7 sites
Stollery Chidlren's Hospital
Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2G3
IWK Health Centre
Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3H 3J5
Montreal Children's Hospital
Montreal, Quebec, H3H 1P3
CHU St. Justine
Montreal, Quebec, H3T 1C5
Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
Ottawa, Ontario, K1H 8L1
BC Children's Hospital
Vancouver, British Columbia, V6H 3V4
Children's Hospital Winnipeg
Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3A 1S1
About this study
Official title: Sustainability of a Multidimensional Knowledge Translation Intervention to Improve Paediatric Pain Practices and Outcomes
The purpose of this research study is to evaluate the effectiveness of short refresher sessions. "Pain Practice Change Boosters" given at regular intervals to sustain improved pain process (assessment and management) and clinical outcomes (pain intensity) achieved during a 15 month knowledge translation intervention, Evidence-based Practice for Improving Quality (EPIQ), in 8 children's hospitals in Canada; and to determine the factors that affect that sustainability. The CIHR Team in Children's Pain (2006-2011) evaluated the effectiveness of the EPIQ intervention in 32 hospital units (4 units at each hospital site). 16 hospital units were allocated to the intervention group and 16 units continued with standard care. The current study focuses on the 16 hospital units that implemented the EPIQ intervention only.
Read the detailed description
This is an 8 hospital repeated measures Randomized Controlled Trial design using a centrally controlled cluster random allocation of units with stratification by hospital. The sample consisted of the 16 hospital units that implemented the EPIQ intervention in the CIHR Team in Children's Pain study. Randomization was restricted so there was one intervention unit and one standard care unit at each site. Outcomes were measured at 3 time points:12 months after the completion of the EPIQ intervention: Baseline (Time 1); 12 months following the implementation of the Booster intervention (Time 2); and 36 months following the implementation of the Booster intervention (Time 3), including the frequency and proportion of children receiving pain assessment and management strategies, children's pain intensity during painful procedures, and health care professionals' perceptions of the context of sustainability.
- Conditions
- Pain
- Being tested
- Pain Practice Change Booster Intervention
- Keywords
- pediatric pain, intervention sustainability
- Medical subject headings
- Pain
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Pain Practice Change Booster InterventionBehavioural
See experimental arm for a description of the intervention
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Pain Practice Change Booster | Experimental | Pain Practice Change Booster Intervention: 12 months after the EPIQ intervention, and every 4 months for 2 years, a 30-60 minute standardized booster session was delivered to a small group of champions in each hospital unit randomized to the intervention group. Two co-facilitators familiar with the EPIQ intervention conducted all booster sessions via teleconference. Booster sessions included reviewing the effectiveness knowledge translation strategies champions implemented over the past four months to sustain and improve targeted pain practices; determining the sustainability of the pain practice changes, developing a commitment to change plan of action for the next four months. Receives: Behavioral: Pain Practice Change Booster Intervention |
| Usual Care Group | No intervention | No interventions associated with the study were conducted on these units. |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Pain Process Outcomes (pain assessment)
Pain process outcomes included the proportion of children per unit whose pain was assessed and whether a validated pain measure was used. Data were collected from 30 patient charts on each unit for the previous 24 hours at 3 time points, using the Canadian Pediatric Pain Research (CPPR) database, which was used and validated in previous studies (Stevens, 2011, 2012, 2014).
Measured: T1 (Baseline)
Factors Influencing Sustainability: The Alberta Context Tool (ACT)
The Alberta Context Tool (ACT) (Estabrooks, 2011) was used to determine the factors that influence sustainability in each of the 16 participating hospital units, including organizational culture, leadership, readiness to change, organizational complexity, professional autonomy and support within the workplace. The ACT measures health care professionals' perceptions of these contextual factors at the unit and institutional levels. The tool was administered in survey form to staff on the participating units at 3 time points.
Measured: T1 (Baseline)
Pain Process Outcomes (pain assessment)
Pain process outcomes included the proportion of children per unit whose pain was assessed and whether a validated pain measure was used. Data were collected from 30 patient charts on each unit for the previous 24 hours at 3 time points, using the Canadian Pediatric Pain Research (CPPR) database, which was used and validated in previous studies (Stevens, 2011, 2012, 2014).
Measured: T2 (12 months following the implementation of the Booster)
Pain Process Outcomes (pain assessment)
Pain process outcomes included the proportion of children per unit whose pain was assessed and whether a validated pain measure was used. Data were collected from 30 patient charts on each unit for the previous 24 hours at 3 time points, using the Canadian Pediatric Pain Research (CPPR) database, which was used and validated in previous studies (Stevens, 2011, 2012, 2014).
Measured: T3 (24 months following the implementation of the Booster)
Factors Influencing Sustainability: The Alberta Context Tool (ACT)
The Alberta Context Tool (ACT) was used to determine the factors that influence sustainability in each of the 16 participating hospital units, including organizational culture, leadership, readiness to change, organizational complexity, professional autonomy and support within the workplace. The ACT measures health care professionals' perceptions of these contextual factors at the unit and institutional levels. The tool was administered in survey form to staff on the participating units at 3 time points.
Measured: T2 (12 months following the implementation of the Booster)
Factors Influencing Sustainability: The Alberta Context Tool (ACT)
The Alberta Context Tool (ACT) was used to determine the factors that influence sustainability in each of the 16 participating hospital units, including organizational culture, leadership, readiness to change, organizational complexity, professional autonomy and support within the workplace. The ACT measures health care professionals' perceptions of these contextual factors at the unit and institutional levels. The tool was administered in survey form to staff on the participating units at 3 time points.
Measured: T3 (24 months following the implementation of the Booster)
Pain Process Outcomes (pain management)
Pain process outcomes included the proportion of children per unit who had painful procedures: (i) without pain management interventions, (ii) with pharmacological interventions, and (iii) with non-pharmacological interventions (i.e., physical or psychological). Data were collected from 30 patient charts on each unit for the previous 24 hours at 3 time points, using the Canadian Pediatric Pain Research (CPPR) database, which was used and validated in previous studies (Stevens, 2011, 2012, 2014).
Measured: T1 (Baseline)
Pain Process Outcomes (pain management)
Pain process outcomes included the proportion of children per unit who had painful procedures: (i) without pain management interventions, (ii) with pharmacological interventions, and (iii) with non-pharmacological interventions (i.e., physical or psychological). Data were collected from 30 patient charts on each unit for the previous 24 hours at 3 time points, using the Canadian Pediatric Pain Research (CPPR) database, which was used and validated in previous studies (Stevens, 2011, 2012, 2014).
Measured: T2 (12 months following the implementation of the Booster)
Pain Process Outcomes (pain management)
Pain process outcomes included the proportion of children per unit who had painful procedures: (i) without pain management interventions, (ii) with pharmacological interventions, and (iii) with non-pharmacological interventions (i.e., physical or psychological). Data were collected from 30 patient charts on each unit for the previous 24 hours at 3 time points, using the Canadian Pediatric Pain Research (CPPR) database, which was used and validated in previous studies (Stevens, 2011, 2012, 2014).
Measured: T3 (24 months following the implementation of the Booster)
Secondary outcomes (3)
Clinical Pain Outcome: Pain Intensity
Pain intensity was measured through patient observation during routinely scheduled painful procedures at 3 time points, using one of four validated, age-appropriate measures: Premature Infant Pain Profile (PIPP) (Stevens et al., 1996) Faces-Legs-Arms-Cry-Consolability Scale (FLACC) (Merkel et al., 1997), Faces Pain Scale-Revised (FPS-R) (Hicks et al., 2001), and Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) (Jensen et a., 1986). Data were collected by local pain experts, experienced pediatric clinicians, who were trained on the four measures to ensure accurate and standardized use.
Measured: T1 (Baseline)
Clinical Pain Outcome: Pain Intensity
Pain intensity was measured through patient observation during routinely scheduled painful procedures at 3 time points, using one of four validated, age-appropriate measures: Premature Infant Pain Profile (PIPP) (Stevens et al., 1996) Faces-Legs-Arms-Cry-Consolability Scale (FLACC) (Merkel et al., 1997), Faces Pain Scale-Revised (FPS-R) (Hicks et al., 2001), and Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) (Jensen et a., 1986). Data were collected by local pain experts, experienced pediatric clinicians, who were trained on the four measures to ensure accurate and standardized use.
Measured: T2 (12 months following the implementation of the Booster)
Clinical Pain Outcome: Pain Intensity
Pain intensity was measured through patient observation during routinely scheduled painful procedures at 3 time points, using one of four validated, age-appropriate measures: Premature Infant Pain Profile (PIPP) (Stevens et al., 1996) Faces-Legs-Arms-Cry-Consolability Scale (FLACC) (Merkel et al., 1997), Faces Pain Scale-Revised (FPS-R) (Hicks et al., 2001), and Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) (Jensen et a., 1986). Data were collected by local pain experts, experienced pediatric clinicians, who were trained on the four measures to ensure accurate and standardized use.
Measured: T3 (24 months following the implementation of the Booster)
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted11 Sep 2014 (estimated)
- Study startSep 2011
- Primary completionJun 2014
- Study completionJun 2014
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (5)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for PainStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by The Hospital for Sick ChildrenThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 3,907 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- The Hospital for Sick Children
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Bonnie Stevens, The Hospital for Sick Children
- Investigators
- Bonnie Stevens, RN, PhD, Principal investigator, The Hospital for Sick Children
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02236949
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 1000026324
- Status last verified
- May 2015
- First submitted
- 5 Sep 2014
- Last updated
- 22 May 2015
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
Publications
Stevens BJ, Yamada J, Estabrooks CA, Stinson J, Campbell F, Scott SD, Cummings G; CIHR Team in Children's Pain. Pain in hospitalized children: Effect of a multidimensional knowledge translation strategy on pain process and clinical outcomes. Pain. 2014 Jan;155(1):60-68. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2013.09.007. Epub 2013 Sep 8.
PubMed 24021861Stevens BJ, Harrison D, Rashotte J, Yamada J, Abbott LK, Coburn G, Stinson J, Le May S; CIHR Team in Children's Pain. Pain assessment and intensity in hospitalized children in Canada. J Pain. 2012 Sep;13(9):857-65. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2012.05.010.
PubMed 22958873Stevens BJ, Abbott LK, Yamada J, Harrison D, Stinson J, Taddio A, Barwick M, Latimer M, Scott SD, Rashotte J, Campbell F, Finley GA; CIHR Team in Children's Pain. Epidemiology and management of painful procedures in children in Canadian hospitals. CMAJ. 2011 Apr 19;183(7):E403-10. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.101341. Epub 2011 Apr 4.
PubMed 21464171Estabrooks CA, Squires JE, Hutchinson AM, Scott S, Cummings GG, Kang SH, Midodzi WK, Stevens B. Assessment of variation in the Alberta Context Tool: the contribution of unit level contextual factors and specialty in Canadian pediatric acute care settings. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011 Oct 4;11:251. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-11-251.
PubMed 21970404Stevens BJ, Yamada J, Promislow S, Barwick M, Pinard M; CIHR Team in Children's Pain. Pain Assessment and Management After a Knowledge Translation Booster Intervention. Pediatrics. 2016 Oct;138(4):e20153468. doi: 10.1542/peds.2015-3468. Epub 2016 Sep 1.
PubMed 27587614
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 22 May 2015. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Sustainability of a Multidimensional Knowledge Translation Intervention to Improve Paediatric Pain Practices and Outcomes
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02236949
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 1000026324
- Conditions
- Pain
- Keywords
- pediatric pain, intervention sustainability
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 3,907 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- The Hospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Sep 2011
- Primary completion
- Jun 2014 (actual)
- Study completion
- Jun 2014 (actual)
- First posted
- 11 Sep 2014 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The purpose of this research study is to evaluate the effectiveness of short refresher sessions. "Pain Practice Change Boosters" given at regular intervals to sustain improved pain process (assessment and management) and clinical outcomes (pain intensity) achieved during a 15 month knowledge translation intervention, Evidence-based Practice for Improving Quality (EPIQ), in 8 children's hospitals in Canada; and to determine the factors that affect that sustainability. The CIHR Team in Children's Pain (2006-2011) evaluated the effectiveness of the EPIQ intervention in 32 hospital units (4 units at each hospital site). 16 hospital units were allocated to the intervention group and 16 units continued with standard care. The current study focuses on the 16 hospital units that implemented the EPIQ intervention only.
Detailed description
This is an 8 hospital repeated measures Randomized Controlled Trial design using a centrally controlled cluster random allocation of units with stratification by hospital. The sample consisted of the 16 hospital units that implemented the EPIQ intervention in the CIHR Team in Children's Pain study. Randomization was restricted so there was one intervention unit and one standard care unit at each site. Outcomes were measured at 3 time points:12 months after the completion of the EPIQ intervention: Baseline (Time 1); 12 months following the implementation of the Booster intervention (Time 2); and 36 months following the implementation of the Booster intervention (Time 3), including the frequency and proportion of children receiving pain assessment and management strategies, children's pain intensity during painful procedures, and health care professionals' perceptions of the context of sustainability.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Pain Practice Change Booster | Experimental | Behavioral: Pain Practice Change Booster InterventionPain Practice Change Booster Intervention: 12 months after the EPIQ intervention, and every 4 months for 2 years, a 30-60 minute standardized booster session was delivered to a small group of champions in each hospital unit randomized to the intervention group. Two co-facilitators familiar with the EPIQ intervention conducted all booster sessions via teleconference. Booster sessions included reviewing the effectiveness knowledge translation strategies champions implemented over the past four months to sustain and improve targeted pain practices; determining the sustainability of the pain practice changes, developing a commitment to change plan of action for the next four months. |
| Usual Care Group | No intervention | –No interventions associated with the study were conducted on these units. |
Who may qualify
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (10 listed)
- distinct geographic location and administrative structure;
- minimum of 15 beds per unit;
- care for children exposed to painful procedures for diagnostic or therapeutic purposes; and
- implementation of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions to manage pain.
- The 16 participating hospital units had implemented the EPIQ intervention in the CIHR Team in Children's Pain study. Patients in the participating hospital units were eligible to be included in the determination of the pain practice and clinical outcomes if they:
Key exclusion criteria (0 listed)
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Pain Practice Change Booster InterventionSee experimental arm for a description of the intervention | Behavioural | Pain Practice Change Booster |
Primary outcome
Pain Process Outcomes (pain assessment)
Time frame: T1 (Baseline)
Pain process outcomes included the proportion of children per unit whose pain was assessed and whether a validated pain measure was used. Data were collected from 30 patient charts on each unit for the previous 24 hours at 3 time points, using the Canadian Pediatric Pain Research (CPPR) database, which was used and validated in previous studies (Stevens, 2011, 2012, 2014).
Factors Influencing Sustainability: The Alberta Context Tool (ACT)
Time frame: T1 (Baseline)
The Alberta Context Tool (ACT) (Estabrooks, 2011) was used to determine the factors that influence sustainability in each of the 16 participating hospital units, including organizational culture, leadership, readiness to change, organizational complexity, professional autonomy and support within the workplace. The ACT measures health care professionals' perceptions of these contextual factors at the unit and institutional levels. The tool was administered in survey form to staff on the participating units at 3 time points.
Pain Process Outcomes (pain assessment)
Time frame: T2 (12 months following the implementation of the Booster)
Pain process outcomes included the proportion of children per unit whose pain was assessed and whether a validated pain measure was used. Data were collected from 30 patient charts on each unit for the previous 24 hours at 3 time points, using the Canadian Pediatric Pain Research (CPPR) database, which was used and validated in previous studies (Stevens, 2011, 2012, 2014).
Pain Process Outcomes (pain assessment)
Time frame: T3 (24 months following the implementation of the Booster)
Pain process outcomes included the proportion of children per unit whose pain was assessed and whether a validated pain measure was used. Data were collected from 30 patient charts on each unit for the previous 24 hours at 3 time points, using the Canadian Pediatric Pain Research (CPPR) database, which was used and validated in previous studies (Stevens, 2011, 2012, 2014).
Factors Influencing Sustainability: The Alberta Context Tool (ACT)
Time frame: T2 (12 months following the implementation of the Booster)
The Alberta Context Tool (ACT) was used to determine the factors that influence sustainability in each of the 16 participating hospital units, including organizational culture, leadership, readiness to change, organizational complexity, professional autonomy and support within the workplace. The ACT measures health care professionals' perceptions of these contextual factors at the unit and institutional levels. The tool was administered in survey form to staff on the participating units at 3 time points.
Factors Influencing Sustainability: The Alberta Context Tool (ACT)
Time frame: T3 (24 months following the implementation of the Booster)
The Alberta Context Tool (ACT) was used to determine the factors that influence sustainability in each of the 16 participating hospital units, including organizational culture, leadership, readiness to change, organizational complexity, professional autonomy and support within the workplace. The ACT measures health care professionals' perceptions of these contextual factors at the unit and institutional levels. The tool was administered in survey form to staff on the participating units at 3 time points.
Pain Process Outcomes (pain management)
Time frame: T1 (Baseline)
Pain process outcomes included the proportion of children per unit who had painful procedures: (i) without pain management interventions, (ii) with pharmacological interventions, and (iii) with non-pharmacological interventions (i.e., physical or psychological). Data were collected from 30 patient charts on each unit for the previous 24 hours at 3 time points, using the Canadian Pediatric Pain Research (CPPR) database, which was used and validated in previous studies (Stevens, 2011, 2012, 2014).
Pain Process Outcomes (pain management)
Time frame: T2 (12 months following the implementation of the Booster)
Pain process outcomes included the proportion of children per unit who had painful procedures: (i) without pain management interventions, (ii) with pharmacological interventions, and (iii) with non-pharmacological interventions (i.e., physical or psychological). Data were collected from 30 patient charts on each unit for the previous 24 hours at 3 time points, using the Canadian Pediatric Pain Research (CPPR) database, which was used and validated in previous studies (Stevens, 2011, 2012, 2014).
Pain Process Outcomes (pain management)
Time frame: T3 (24 months following the implementation of the Booster)
Pain process outcomes included the proportion of children per unit who had painful procedures: (i) without pain management interventions, (ii) with pharmacological interventions, and (iii) with non-pharmacological interventions (i.e., physical or psychological). Data were collected from 30 patient charts on each unit for the previous 24 hours at 3 time points, using the Canadian Pediatric Pain Research (CPPR) database, which was used and validated in previous studies (Stevens, 2011, 2012, 2014).
3 secondary outcomes
Clinical Pain Outcome: Pain Intensity
Time frame: T1 (Baseline)
Clinical Pain Outcome: Pain Intensity
Time frame: T2 (12 months following the implementation of the Booster)
Clinical Pain Outcome: Pain Intensity
Time frame: T3 (24 months following the implementation of the Booster)
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 22 May 2015.
- Background: PubMed 24021861Stevens BJ, Yamada J, Estabrooks CA, Stinson J, Campbell F, Scott SD, Cummings G; CIHR Team in Children's Pain. Pain in hospitalized children: Effect of a multidimensional knowledge translation strategy on pain process and clinical outcomes. Pain. 2014 Jan;155(1):60-68. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2013.09.007. Epub 2013 Sep 8.
- Background: PubMed 22958873Stevens BJ, Harrison D, Rashotte J, Yamada J, Abbott LK, Coburn G, Stinson J, Le May S; CIHR Team in Children's Pain. Pain assessment and intensity in hospitalized children in Canada. J Pain. 2012 Sep;13(9):857-65. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2012.05.010.
- Background: PubMed 21464171Stevens BJ, Abbott LK, Yamada J, Harrison D, Stinson J, Taddio A, Barwick M, Latimer M, Scott SD, Rashotte J, Campbell F, Finley GA; CIHR Team in Children's Pain. Epidemiology and management of painful procedures in children in Canadian hospitals. CMAJ. 2011 Apr 19;183(7):E403-10. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.101341. Epub 2011 Apr 4.
- Background: PubMed 21970404Estabrooks CA, Squires JE, Hutchinson AM, Scott S, Cummings GG, Kang SH, Midodzi WK, Stevens B. Assessment of variation in the Alberta Context Tool: the contribution of unit level contextual factors and specialty in Canadian pediatric acute care settings. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011 Oct 4;11:251. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-11-251.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 27587614Stevens BJ, Yamada J, Promislow S, Barwick M, Pinard M; CIHR Team in Children's Pain. Pain Assessment and Management After a Knowledge Translation Booster Intervention. Pediatrics. 2016 Oct;138(4):e20153468. doi: 10.1542/peds.2015-3468. Epub 2016 Sep 1.
Related trials for Pain
Not yet recruiting
Effect of Stress Ball Use During Femoral Arterial Sheath Removal After Coronary Angiography
Femoral Arterial Sheath Removal, Stress Ball
Recruiting
Empowered Relief® for Cancer Survivors With Chronic Pain
Chronic Pain Due to Cancer, Pain Catastrophizing
RecruitingPhase 4
ESP Blocks for Posterior Spinal Fusion
Postoperative Pain
RecruitingObservational study
Pain Phenotypes in Individuals With Multiple Sclerosis
Multiple Sclerosis, Chronic Pain
Not yet recruiting
Effects of Hip Hinge Exercises on Pain, Range of Motion and Functional Disability in Non-specific Low Back Pain.
Low Back Pain
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Bonnie Stevens, RN, PhD principal investigator
The Hospital for Sick Children
7 sites in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Pain Practice Change Booster Intervention in people with Pain, run by The Hospital for Sick Children at 7 sites in Canada.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 10 inclusion and 0 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 22 May 2015. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 7 sites in Canada. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Pain Process Outcomes (pain assessment) (time frame: T1 (Baseline)). The study lists 9 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT02236949, which also lists 5 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 22 May 2015.