Article

Statistical considerations in a systematic review of proxy measures of clinical behaviour

Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, 21 Claremont Place, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 4AA, UK.
Implementation Science (Impact Factor: 3.47). 02/2010; 5:20. DOI: 10.1186/1748-5908-5-20
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Studies included in a related systematic review used a variety of statistical methods to summarise clinical behaviour and to compare proxy (or indirect) and direct (observed) methods of measuring it. The objective of the present review was to assess the validity of these statistical methods and make appropriate recommendations.
Electronic bibliographic databases were searched to identify studies meeting specified inclusion criteria. Potentially relevant studies were screened for inclusion independently by two reviewers. This was followed by systematic abstraction and categorization of statistical methods, as well as critical assessment of these methods.
Fifteen reports (of 11 studies) met the inclusion criteria. Thirteen analysed individual clinical actions separately and presented a variety of summary statistics: sensitivity was available in eight reports and specificity in six, but four reports treated different actions interchangeably. Seven reports combined several actions into summary measures of behaviour: five reports compared means on direct and proxy measures using analysis of variance or t-tests; four reported the Pearson correlation; none compared direct and proxy measures over the range of their values. Four reports comparing individual items used appropriate statistical methods, but reports that compared summary scores did not.
We recommend sensitivity and positive predictive value as statistics to assess agreement of direct and proxy measures of individual clinical actions. Summary measures should be reliable, repeatable, capture a single underlying aspect of behaviour, and map that construct onto a valid measurement scale. The relationship between the direct and proxy measures should be evaluated over the entire range of the direct measure and describe not only the mean of the proxy measure for any specific value of the direct measure, but also the range of variability of the proxy measure. The evidence about the relationship between direct and proxy methods of assessing clinical behaviour is weak.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Susan Hrisos, Jun 28, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
223 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Variability between clinical practice guideline recommendations and actual clinical practice exists in many areas of health care. A 2004 systematic review examining the effectiveness of guideline implementation interventions concluded there was a lack of evidence to support decisions about effective interventions to promote the uptake of guidelines. Further, the review recommended the use of theory in the development of implementation interventions. A clinical practice guideline for the management of acute low-back pain has been developed in Australia (2003). Acute low-back pain is a common condition, has a high burden, and there is some indication of an evidence-practice gap in the allied health setting. This provides an opportunity to develop and test a theory-based implementation intervention which, if effective, may provide benefits for patients with this condition. Aims This study aims to estimate the effectiveness of a theory-based intervention to increase allied health practitioners' (physiotherapists and chiropractors in Victoria, Australia) compliance with a clinical practice guideline for acute non-specific low back pain (LBP), compared with providing practitioners with a printed copy of the guideline. Specifically, our primary objectives are to establish if the intervention is effective in reducing the percentage of acute non-specific LBP patients who are either referred for or receive an x-ray, and improving mean level of disability for patients three months post-onset of acute LBP. Methods The design of the study is a cluster randomised trial. Restricted randomisation was used to randomise 210 practices (clusters) to an intervention or control group. Practitioners in the control group received a printed copy of the guideline. Practitioners in the intervention group received a theory-based intervention developed to address prospectively identified barriers to practitioner compliance with the guideline. The intervention primarily consisted of an educational symposium. Patients aged 18 years or older who visit a participating practitioner for acute non-specific LBP of less than three months duration over a two-week data collection period, three months post the intervention symposia, are eligible for inclusion. Sample size calculations are based on recruiting between 15 to 40 patients per practice. Outcome assessors will be blinded to group allocation. Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12609001022257 (date registered 25th November 2009)
    Implementation Science 11/2010; 5(1):86. DOI:10.1186/1748-5908-5-86 · 3.47 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention (DHDSP), commissioned an Institute of Medicine (IOM) report to identify the highest priority action areas for CDC, state health departments, and other public health partners in their efforts to reduce and control hypertension. To assess the dissemination and adoption of the IOM report recommendations, DHDSP developed an evaluation based on the Interactive Systems Framework for Dissemination and Implementation (ISF). The evaluation incorporates data collection at critical points across 3 years. In this article, we focus on the ISF systems to describe the role of funded state partners and their relationship with CDC in implementing public health recommendations. We describe baseline results for three data collection activities: (1) key informant interviews, (2) a Web-based survey, and (3) content analysis of state workplans to determine the degree of alignment with IOM recommendations. For example, currently 30 % of surveyed programs are implementing most (or all) of the recommendations in the IOM report, however 76 % intend to change hypertension program priorities based on the recommendations of the IOM report. Qualitative data suggest that there are several facilitators and barriers in implementing public health policy recommendations. DHDSP will use these baseline results to provide additional technical assistance and support to state health departments in their efforts to implement the IOM report's recommendations.
    American Journal of Community Psychology 04/2012; 50(3-4). DOI:10.1007/s10464-012-9511-0 · 1.74 Impact Factor
  • Source
    01/2013; University of Magdeburg.