LAUSR

PURPOSE Translation of findings from stroke trials into clinical practice remains low. Little is known about planned translation activities from the perspective of trialists who generate the evidence. This study aims to investigate perceptions of Australian stroke clinical trialists' about implementation of their findings into practice, and what translation activities they embedded into trial protocols. MATERIALS AND METHOD A descriptive cohort design and electronic survey was conducted. Three databases were searched to identify Australian stroke rehabilitation trials published between 2007 and 2017. Corresponding authors of the included trials were invited to complete an anonymous online survey about implementation of their trial intervention. RESULTS Fifty-one trialists were invited to participate and 38 completed the survey (74% response rate). The majority (79%) considered their trial results to be clinically significant and 68% had pre-planned knowledge translation activities. The most common planned translation activities were publication (89%), conference presentation (87%), and feedback of results to target audiences (58%). Mixed opinions were evident regarding when and how to design knowledge translation activities for inclusion in trial protocols. Stroke rehabilitation trialists rely mostly on anecdotal reports about implementation of trial interventions, with few formally measuring uptake. Implications for rehabilitation The most common knowledge translation activities planned for by researchers are publication of findings in academic journals, and conference presentations. Mixed opinions exist regarding when and how to design for knowledge translation activities in trial protocols. Limited formal measurement of intervention uptake is completed. Further implementation research is required to support and measure effective translation efforts when embedded into trial protocols.