title: Theory of planned behaviour can help understand processes underlying the use of two emergency medicine diagnostic imaging rules.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Clinical decision rules (CDRs) can be an effective tool for knowledge translation in emergency medicine, but their implementation is often a challenge. This study examined whether the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) could help explain the inconsistent results between the successful Canadian C-Spine Rule (CCR) implementation study and unsuccessful Canadian CT Head Rule (CCHR) implementation study. Both rules are aimed at improving the accuracy and efficiency of emergency department radiography use in clinical contexts that exhibit enormous inefficiency at the present time. The rules were prospectively derived and validated using the same methodology demonstrating high sensitivity and reliability. The rules subsequently underwent parallel implementations at 12 Canadian hospitals, yet only the CCR was observed to significantly reduce radiography ordering rates, while the CCHR failed to have any significant impact at all. The drastically different results are unlikely to be the result of differences in implementation strategies or the decision rules.
  
  
  METHODS
  Physicians at the 12 participating Canadian hospitals were randomized to CCR or CCHR TPB surveys that were administered during the baseline phases of the implementation studies, before any intervention had taken place. The collected baseline survey data were linked to concurrent baseline physician and patient-specific imaging data, and subsequently analyzed using mixed effects linear and logistic models.
  
  
  RESULTS
  A total of 223 of the 378 eligible physicians randomized to a TPB survey completed their assigned baseline survey (CCR: 122 of 181; CCHR: 101 of 197). Attitudes were significantly associated with intention in both settings (CCR: ß = 0.40; CCHR: ß = 0.30), as were subjective norms (CCR: ß = 0.26; CCHR: ß = 0.73). Intention was significantly associated with actual image ordering for CCR (OR = 1.79), but not CCHR.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The TPB can be used to better understand processes underlying use of CDRs. TPB constructs were significantly associated with intention to perform both imaging behaviours, but intention was only associated with actual behaviour for CCR, suggesting that constructs outside of the TPB framework may need to be considered when seeking to understand use of CDRs.
authors.forename: Richard
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Perez
authors.forename: Jamie C
authors.initials: JC
authors.lastname: Brehaut
authors.forename: Monica
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Taljaard
authors.forename: Ian G
authors.initials: IG
authors.lastname: Stiell
authors.forename: Catherine M
authors.initials: CM
authors.lastname: Clement
authors.forename: Jeremy
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Grimshaw
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D002170:Canada; D003625:Data Collection; D003661:Decision Support Techniques; D003952:Diagnostic Imaging / Q000523:psychology / Q000592:standards* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D004059:Diffusion of Innovation; D004636:Emergency Service, Hospital / Q000592:standards / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D005260:Female; D019983:Guideline Adherence / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008960:Models, Psychological; D010818:Practice Patterns, Physicians' / Q000706:statistics & numerical data
references.citation: Implement Sci. 2007 Feb 08;2:4
references.pmid: 17288613
references.citation: Implement Sci. 2008 Jul 16;3:36
references.pmid: 18631386
references.citation: Qual Saf Health Care. 2003 Aug;12(4):298-303
references.pmid: 12897365
references.citation: Br J Soc Psychol. 2005 Dec;44(Pt 4):497-512
references.pmid: 16368016
references.citation: Lancet. 2001 May 5;357(9266):1391-6
references.pmid: 11356436
references.citation: JAMA. 1994 Mar 16;271(11):827-32
references.pmid: 8114236
references.citation: BMJ. 1995 Sep 2;311(7005):594-7
references.pmid: 7663253
references.citation: Psychiatr Serv. 2008 Jul;59(7):747-52
references.pmid: 18586991
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Jun 13;(6):CD000259
references.pmid: 22696318
references.citation: Nurs Res. 2007 Jul-Aug;56(4 Suppl):S78-85
references.pmid: 17625479
references.citation: Implement Sci. 2013 Feb 21;8:25
references.pmid: 23433082
references.citation: JAMA. 2001 Oct 17;286(15):1841-8
references.pmid: 11597285
references.citation: CMAJ. 2010 Oct 5;182(14):1527-32
references.pmid: 20732978
references.citation: J Clin Epidemiol. 2005 Feb;58(2):107-12
references.pmid: 15680740
references.citation: West J Nurs Res. 2006 Mar;28(2):244-53
references.pmid: 16513922
references.citation: Acad Emerg Med. 2006 Apr;13(4):413-20
references.pmid: 16531607
references.citation: Ann Emerg Med. 1999 Apr;33(4):437-47
references.pmid: 10092723
references.citation: BMJ. 2009 Oct 29;339:b4146
references.pmid: 19875425
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 2003 Dec 25;349(26):2510-8
references.pmid: 14695411
references.citation: Implement Sci. 2012 Apr 24;7:37
references.pmid: 22530986
references.citation: JAMA. 1997 Dec 17;278(23):2075-9
references.pmid: 9403421
references.citation: Acad Emerg Med. 2005 Oct;12(10):948-56
references.pmid: 16166599
references.citation: Acad Emerg Med. 2007 Nov;14(11):955-9
references.pmid: 17923717