Reducing falls in hospital through education to change patient and staff behaviour: A stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled effectiveness trial

Background: Falls remain the most frequent adverse event reported in hospitals, particularly geriatric rehabilitation wards. Randomised trials reducing fall injuries in hospitals have been elusive. Our previous randomised trial (n = 1206) demonstrated that multimedia education with physiotherapist falls educator support reduced falls among patients with higher cognition levels, but this benefit was offset by a potential increase in falls rates among patients with poor cognition. In the previous trial, hospital staff were blinded to the allocation of individual patients, and only delivered usual care.

Cluster randomised-control trial for an Australian child protection education program: Study protocol for the Learn to be safe with Emmy and friends™

Background Child maltreatment has severe short-and long-term consequences for children’s health, development, and wellbeing. Despite the provision of child protection education programs in many countries, few have been rigorously evaluated to determine their effectiveness. We describe the design of a multi-site gold standard evaluation of an Australian school-based child protection education program. The intervention has been developed by a not-for-profit agency and comprises 5 1-h sessions delivered to first grade students (aged 5–6 years) in their regular classrooms. It incorporates common attributes of effective programs identified in the literature, and aligns with the Australian education curriculum. Methods/Design A three-site cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) of Learn to be safe with Emmy and friends™ will be conducted with children in approximately 72 first grade classrooms in 24 Queensland primary (elementary) schools from three state regions, over a period of 2 years. Entire schools will be randomised, using a computer generated list of random numbers, to intervention and wait-list control conditions, to prevent contamination effects across students and classes. Data will be collected at baseline (pre-assessment), immediately after the intervention (post-assessment), and at 6-, 12-, and 18-months (follow-up assessments). Outcome assessors will be blinded to group membership. Primary outcomes assessed are children’s knowledge of program concepts; intentions to use program knowledge, skills, and help-seeking strategies; actual use of program material in a simulated situation; and anxiety arising from program participation. Secondary outcomes include a parent discussion monitor, parent observations of their children’s use of program materials, satisfaction with the program, and parental stress. A process evaluation will be conducted concurrently to assess program performance. Discussion This RCT addresses shortcomings in previous studies and methodologically extends research in this area by randomising at school-level to prevent cross-learning between conditions; providing longer-term outcome assessment than any previous study; examining the degree to which parents/guardians discuss intervention content with children at home; assessing potential moderating/mediating effects of family and child demographic variables; testing an in-vivo measure to assess children’s ability to discriminate safe/unsafe situations and disclose to trusted adults; and testing enhancements to existing measures to establish greater internal consistency.

Dominating search: Google before the law

For many, particularly in the Anglophone world and Western Europe, it may be obvious that Google has a monopoly over online search and advertising and that this is an undesirable state of affairs, due to Google's ability to mediate information flows online. The baffling question may be why governments and regulators are doing little to nothing about this situation, given the increasingly pivotal importance of the internet and free flowing communications in our lives. However, the law concerning monopolies, namely antitrust or competition law, works in what may be seen as a less intuitive way by the general public. Monopolies themselves are not illegal. Conduct that is unlawful, i.e. abuses of that market power, is defined by a complex set of rules and revolves principally around economic harm suffered due to anticompetitive behavior. However the effect of information monopolies over search, such as Google’s, is more than just economic, yet competition law does not address this. Furthermore, Google’s collection and analysis of user data and its portfolio of related services make it difficult for others to compete. Such a situation may also explain why Google’s established search rivals, Bing and Yahoo, have not managed to provide services that are as effective or popular as Google’s own (on this issue see also the texts by Dirk Lewandowski and Astrid Mager in this reader). Users, however, are not entirely powerless. Google's business model rests, at least partially, on them – especially the data collected about them. If they stop using Google, then Google is nothing.

Google, online search and consumer confusion in Australia

The legality of the operation of Google’s search engine, and its liability as an Internet intermediary, has been tested in various jurisdictions on various grounds. In Australia, there was an ultimately unsuccessful case against Google under the Australian Consumer Law relating to how it presents results from its search engine. Despite this failed claim, several complex issues were not adequately addressed in the case including whether Google sufficiently distinguishes between the different parts of its search results page, so as not to mislead or deceive consumers. This article seeks to address this question of consumer confusion by drawing on empirical survey evidence of Australian consumers’ understanding of Google’s search results layout. This evidence, the first of its kind in Australia, indicates some level of consumer confusion. The implications for future legal proceedings in against Google in Australia and in other jurisdictions are discussed.

HealthMap: A cluster randomised trial of interactive health plans and self-management support to prevent coronary heart disease in people with HIV

Background The leading causes of morbidity and mortality for people in high-income countries living with HIV are now non-AIDS malignancies, cardiovascular disease and other non-communicable diseases associated with ageing. This protocol describes the trial of HealthMap, a model of care for people with HIV (PWHIV) that includes use of an interactive shared health record and self-management support. The aims of the HealthMap trial are to evaluate engagement of PWHIV and healthcare providers with the model, and its effectiveness for reducing coronary heart disease risk, enhancing self-management, and improving mental health and quality of life of PWHIV. Methods/Design The study is a two-arm cluster randomised trial involving HIV clinical sites in several states in Australia. Doctors will be randomised to the HealthMap model (immediate arm) or to proceed with usual care (deferred arm). People with HIV whose doctors are randomised to the immediate arm receive 1) new opportunities to discuss their health status and goals with their HIV doctor using a HealthMap shared health record; 2) access to their own health record from home; 3) access to health coaching delivered by telephone and online; and 4) access to a peer moderated online group chat programme. Data will be collected from participating PWHIV (n = 710) at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months and from participating doctors (n = 60) at baseline and 12 months. The control arm will be offered the HealthMap intervention at the end of the trial. The primary study outcomes, measured at 12 months, are 1) 10-year risk of non-fatal acute myocardial infarction or coronary heart disease death as estimated by a Framingham Heart Study risk equation; and 2) Positive and Active Engagement in Life Scale from the Health Education Impact Questionnaire (heiQ). Discussion The study will determine the viability and utility of a novel technology-supported model of care for maintaining the health and wellbeing of people with HIV. If shown to be effective, the HealthMap model may provide a generalisable, scalable and sustainable system for supporting the care needs of people with HIV, addressing issues of equity of access. Trial registration Universal Trial Number (UTN) U111111506489; ClinicalTrial.gov Id NCT02178930 submitted 29 June 2014

General Practitioner Antimicrobial Stewardship Programme Study (GAPS): protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial

Background There is a strong link between antibiotic consumption and the rate of antibiotic resistance. In Australia, the vast majority of antibiotics are prescribed by general practitioners, and the most common indication is for acute respiratory infections. The aim of this study is to assess if implementing a package of integrated, multifaceted interventions reduces antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory infections in general practice. Methods/design This is a cluster randomised trial comparing two parallel groups of general practitioners in 28 urban general practices in Queensland, Australia: 14 intervention and 14 control practices. The protocol was peer-reviewed by content experts who were nominated by the funding organization. This study evaluates an integrated, multifaceted evidence-based package of interventions implemented over a six month period. The included interventions, which have previously been demonstrated to be effective at reducing antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory infections, are: delayed prescribing; patient decision aids; communication training; commitment to a practice prescribing policy for antibiotics; patient information leaflet; and near patient testing with C-reactive protein. In addition, two sub-studies are nested in the main study: (1) point prevalence estimation carriage of bacterial upper respiratory pathogens in practice staff and asymptomatic patients; (2) feasibility of direct measures of antibiotic resistance by nose/throat swabbing. The main outcome data are from Australia’s national health insurance scheme, Medicare, which will be accessed after the completion of the intervention phase. They include the number of antibiotic prescriptions and the number of patient visits per general practitioner for periods before and during the intervention. The incidence of antibiotic prescriptions will be modelled using the numbers of patients as the denominator and seasonal and other factors as explanatory variables. Results will compare the change in prescription rates before and during the intervention in the two groups of practices. Semi-structured interviews will be conducted with the general practitioners and practice staff (practice nurse and/or practice manager) from the intervention practices on conclusion of the intervention phase to assess the feasibility and uptake of the interventions. An economic evaluation will be conducted to estimate the costs of implementing the package, and its cost-effectiveness in terms of cost per unit reduction in prescribing. Discussion The results on the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, acceptability and feasibility of this package of interventions will inform the policy for any national implementation.

Do SMEs cluster around innovation activities? Discovering active, incremental and opportunistic innovators

Do SMEs cluster around different types of innovation activities? Are there patterns of SME innovation activities? To investigate we develop a taxonomy of innovation activities in SMEs using a qualitative study, followed by a survey. First, based upon our qualitative research and literature review we develop a comprehensive list of innovation activities SMEs typically engage in. We then conduct a factor analysis to determine if these activities can be combined into factors. We identify three innovation activity factors: R&D activities, incremental innovation activities and cost innovation activities. We use these factors to identify three clusters of firms engaging in similar innovation activities: active innovators, incremental innovators and opportunistic innovators. The clusters are enriched by validating that they also exhibit significant internal similarities and external differences in their innovation skills, demographics, industry segments and family business ownership. This research contributes to innovation and SME theory and practice by identifying SME clusters based upon their innovation activities.