Cited by 44Health Policy Implementation ScienceClinical practice guidelines implementationReproductive Health and Contraception

A randomised controlled trial of a tailored multifaceted strategy to promote implementation of a clinical guideline on induced abortion care

Open access
Foy, R., Penney, G.C., Grimshaw, J.M., Ramsay, C.R., Walker, A.E., MacLennan, G., Stearns, S.C., McKenzie, L. +1 more·2004·BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of a tailored multifaceted strategy, delivered by a national clinical effectiveness programme, to implement a guideline on induced abortion. Design Cluster randomised controlled trial. Setting and participants All 26 hospital gynaecology units in Scotland providing induced abortion care. Intervention Following the identification of barriers to guideline implementation, intervention units received a package comprising audit and feedback, unit educational meetings, dissemination of structured case records and promotion of a patient information booklet. Control units received printed guideline summaries alone. Main outcome measures Compliance with five key guideline recommendations (primary outcomes) and compliance with other recommendations, patient satisfaction and costs of the implementation strategy (secondary outcomes). Results No effect was observed for any key recommendation: appointment with a gynaecologist within five days of referral (odds ratio 0.89; 95% confidence interval 0.50 to 1.58); ascertainment of cervical cytology history (0.93; 0.36 to 2.40); antibiotic prophylaxis or screening for lower genital tract infection (1.70; 0.71 to 5.99); use of misoprostol as an alternative to gemeprost (1.00; 0.27 to 1.77); and offer of contraceptive supplies at discharge (1.11; 0.48 to 2.53). Median pre‐intervention compliance was near optimal for antibiotic prophylaxis and misoprostol use. No intervention benefit was observed for any secondary outcome. The intervention costs an average of £2607 per gynaecology unit. Conclusions The tailored multifaceted strategy was ineffective. This was possibly attributable to high pre‐intervention compliance and the limited impact of the strategy on factors outside the perceived control of clinical staff.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00168.x

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The overall risk of bias for Foy 2004 was unclear (4 criteria unclear risk, including randomisation and allocation concealment).

    “Risk of bias overall Unclear risk 4 criteria unclear risk, including randomisation and allocation concealment”

    From Tailored interventions to address determinants of practice (2015) · cites this paper as Foy 2004

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Foy, R., Penney, G. C., Grimshaw, J. M., Ramsay, C. R., Walker, A. E., MacLennan, G., Stearns, S. C., McKenzie, L., & Glasier, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
  • University of Aberdeen (GB)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
Corresponding author
Foy, R.
Venue
BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2004-04-26
Volume
111
Issue
7
Pages
726-733
ISSN
  • 0306-5456 (ISSN-L)
  • 1470-0328
  • 1471-0528
OpenAlex
W2011564202
Cited by
44
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 3
FWCI
6.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Health and Contraception
Keywords
abortion, guideline implementation, audit and feedback, misoprostol, antibiotic prophylaxis, cervical cytology, contraceptive provision, patient satisfaction, implementation costs
MeSH terms
Abortion, Induced, Adult, Aftercare, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Female, Humans, Patient Education as Topic, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Outcome, Prenatal Care, Practice Guidelines as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review