4.2 Article

Fast-tracking implementation through trial design: the case of buprenorphine treatment in Victoria

Journal

Publisher

PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOC AUSTRALIA INC
DOI: 10.1111/j.1753-6405.2009.00335.x

Keywords

buprenorphine; know-do gap; research-practice gap; trial design; randomised controlled trials

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: We investigated how a randomised controlled trial (RCT) could be designed to incorporate features known or thought likely to enhance the uptake of the new treatment into clinical practice post-trial. Method and Results: Between 1999 and 2001, we trialled buprenorphine treatment for heroin dependence in community settings throughout Victoria, using 28 experienced methadone prescribers and 34 pharmacists across 19 sites. In this case study, we describe how we incorporated seven features considered important in treatment uptake: skilled and experienced practitioners, government and policy support, incentives to prescribe the new treatment, specialist support services, clinical guidelines, training programs and patient involvement and information. We also present information showing that uptake of buprenorphine treatment was substantially boosted in Victoria compared with other Australian jurisdictions immediately after the trial in 2001 and that this increase was sustained until at least 2006. Conclusion: While we cannot prove that our trial design was responsible for the increased uptake of buprenorphine treatment in Victoria, we do show that design has been a neglected aspect of clinical trials in terms of enhancing post-trial uptake of the treatment being tested. Implications: Those interested in closing the 'know-do' gap between research and practice may wish to further explore this very promising lead. Imaginative linking of features known to enhance treatment uptake to pressing research questions may lead to new information on efficacy, as well as getting valuable drugs into the treatment system more rapidly.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available