Cited by 18Health Policy Implementation ScienceEvaluation and Performance AssessmentDiabetes Management and Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 61 of the 62 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Implementation salvage experiences from the Melbourne diabetes prevention study

Open access
Dunbar, James, Hernan, Andrea, Janus, Edward, Davis-Lameloise, Nathalie, Asproloupos, Dino, O’Reilly, Sharleen, Timoshanko, Amy, Stewart, Elizabeth, Bennett, Catherine M, Johnson, Greg, Carter, Rob·2012·BMC Public Health

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Many public health interventions based on apparently sound evidence from randomised controlled trials encounter difficulties when being scaled up within health systems. Even under the best of circumstances, implementation is exceedingly difficult. In this paper we will describe the implementation salvage experiences from the Melbourne Diabetes Prevention Study, which is a randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness nested in the state-wide Life! Taking Action on Diabetes program in Victoria, Australia. DISCUSSION: The Melbourne Diabetes Prevention Study sits within an evolving larger scale implementation project, the Life! program. Changes that occurred during the roll-out of that program had a direct impact on the process of conducting this trial. The issues and methods of recovery the study team encountered were conceptualised using an implementation salvage strategies framework. The specific issues the study team came across included continuity of the state funding for Life! program and structural changes to the Life! program which consisted of adjustments to eligibility criteria, referral processes, structure and content, as well as alternative program delivery for different population groups. Staff turnover, recruitment problems, setting and venue concerns, availability of potential participants and participant characteristics were also identified as evaluation roadblocks. Each issue and corresponding salvage strategy is presented. SUMMARY: The experiences of conducting such a novel trial as the preliminary Melbourne Diabetes Prevention Study have been invaluable. The lessons learnt and knowledge gained will inform the future execution of this trial in the coming years. We anticipate that these results will also be beneficial to other researchers conducting similar trials in the public health field. We recommend that researchers openly share their experiences, barriers and challenges when conducting randomised controlled trials and implementation research. We encourage them to describe the factors that may have inhibited or enhanced the desired outcomes so that the academic community can learn and expand the research foundation of implementation salvage.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1471-2458-12-806

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Even if strategies are meticulously described in a study protocol or trial registry, it is often unrealistic to expect that they will not need to be altered as determinants emerge across implementation phases.

    “Even if strategies are meticulously described in a study protocol or trial registry, it is often unrealistic to expect that they will not need to be altered as determinants emerge across implementation phases (13, 93, 94).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 62 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Pressman G, Wildavsky A: Implementation: how great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland. 1984, Berkley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 3
  2. Hoagwood K, Chaffin M, Chamberlain P, Bickman L, Mittman B: Implementation salvage strategies: maximizing methodological flexibility in children's mental health research. 4th Annual NIH Conference on the Science of Dissemination and Implementation: Policy and Practice. Edited by: Hoagwood K, Chaffin M, Chamberlain P, Bickman L, Mittman B. 2011, Maryland US, http://obssr.od.nih.gov/scientific_areas/translation/dissemination_and_implementation/DI2011/resources/1C%20Hoagwood%20Session%20Implementation%20Salvage%20Strategies%20NIH%20DI%20Conference%20FINAL%20%5BRead-Only%5D.pdf ,
  3. International Diabetes Federation 5th Edition, The Global Burden 5th Edition, The Burden. http://www.idf.org/diabetesatlas/5e/the-global-burden ,
  4. Finnish Diabetes Association: Programme for the Prevention and Care of Diabetes in Finland 2003–2010 (DEHKO). 2003, Jyväskylä, Finland: Finnish Diabetes Association
  5. Puffer S, Torgerson D: Recruitment difficulties in randomised controlled trials. Control Clin Trials. 2003, 24 (3): 214-215.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Dunbar, J., Hernan, A., Janus, E., Davis-Lameloise, N., Asproloupos, D., O’Reilly, S., Timoshanko, A., Stewart, E., Bennett, C. M., Johnson, G., & Carter, R.
Affiliations
  • Deakin University (AU)
  • Diabetes Victoria (AU)
Corresponding author
Dunbar, James
Venue
BMC Public Health
Published
2012-09-19
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
806-806
ISSN
1471-2458 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2134216570
Cited by
18
References
62
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2013: 1
FWCI
1.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Flinders Academic Commons (Flinders University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Diabetes Australia
  • State Government of Victoria
  • Diabetes Victoria
  • Medical Research Council
  • National Health and Medical Research Council (533819)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
Keywords
diabetes prevention, implementation research, employee turnover, participant recruitment
MeSH terms
Cost-Benefit Analysis, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Humans, Victoria, Program Evaluation, Program Development

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