Implementation Evaluation and Ethics

Cross-source consensus on Implementation Evaluation and Ethics from 1 sources and 5 claims.

1 sources · 5 claims

Risks & contraindications

Evidence quality

Other

Highlighted claims

The study uses the RE-AIM framework with Proctor's Implementation Outcomes Framework to evaluate implementation. — Study protocol for a hybrid I randomised clinical trial to evaluate an audit and feedback and a pharmacist-led intervention to reduce potentially inappropriate medications in older adults: the AIM study
Patient-level data are anonymised at source before transfer by authorised data managers. — Study protocol for a hybrid I randomised clinical trial to evaluate an audit and feedback and a pharmacist-led intervention to reduce potentially inappropriate medications in older adults: the AIM study
Qualitative interview data will be transcribed and thematically analysed using a hybrid inductive-deductive approach. — Study protocol for a hybrid I randomised clinical trial to evaluate an audit and feedback and a pharmacist-led intervention to reduce potentially inappropriate medications in older adults: the AIM study
Implementation fidelity is assessed by whether personalised feedback, pharmacist-led sessions, and online training access are delivered as intended. — Study protocol for a hybrid I randomised clinical trial to evaluate an audit and feedback and a pharmacist-led intervention to reduce potentially inappropriate medications in older adults: the AIM study
The study does not require individual general practitioner or patient consent because aggregated anonymised prescribing data are used as part of routine quality improvement. — Study protocol for a hybrid I randomised clinical trial to evaluate an audit and feedback and a pharmacist-led intervention to reduce potentially inappropriate medications in older adults: the AIM study