-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Ensuring high quality care for persons with diabetes remains a challenge for healthcare systems globally with consistent evidence of suboptimal care and outcomes. There is increasing interest in quality improvement strategies to improve diabetes management as reflected by a growing number of systematic reviews. These reviews are of varying quality and dispersed across many sources. In this paper, we present an overview of systematic reviews evaluating the impact of interventions to improve the quality of diabetes care. METHODS: We searched for systematic reviews evaluating the effectiveness of any intervention intended to improve intermediate patient outcomes and process of care measures for patients with any type of diabetes. Two reviewers independently screened search results, appraised each systematic review using AMSTAR and extracted data from high quality reviews (AMSTAR score >=5). Within reviews, we used vote counting by direction of effect to report the number of studies favouring an intervention for each outcome. We produced summaries of results for each intervention category. RESULTS: We identified 125 reviews of varying methodological quality and summarised key findings from 50 high quality reviews. We categorised reviews by quality improvement intervention. Eight reviews were broad based (involving a variety of strategies). Other reviews considered: patient education and support (n = 21), telemedicine (n = 10), provider role changes (n = 7), and organisational changes (n=4). Reviews reported intermediate patient outcomes (e.g. glycaemic control) (n = 49) and process of care outcomes (n = 9). There was evidence of considerable overlap of included studies between reviews. CONCLUSIONS: There is consistent evidence from high quality systematic reviews that patient education and support, provider role changes, and telemedicine are associated with improvements in glycaemic and vascular risk factor control in patients. There is less evidence about the impact of quality improvement interventions on other key process measures such as screening patients for diabetic complications. This paper provides decision makers with a comprehensive overview of evidence from high quality systematic reviews about the effects of quality improvement interventions on improving diabetes care.
Systematic reviews. 05/2013; 2(1):26.
-
Shazia H Chaudhry,
Jamie C Brehaut, Jeremy M Grimshaw,
Charles Weijer,
Robert Boruch,
Allan Donner,
Martin P Eccles,
Andrew D McRae,
Raphael Saginur,
Zoë C Skea,
Merrick Zwarenstein,
Monica Taljaard
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Cluster randomized trials (CRTs) complicate the interpretation of standard research ethics guidelines for several reasons. For one, the units of allocation, intervention, and observation often may differ within a single trial. In the absence of tailored and internationally accepted ethics guidelines for CRTs, researchers and research ethics committees have no common standard by which to judge ethically appropriate practices in CRTs. Moreover, lack of familiarity with and consideration of the unique features of the CRT design by research ethics committees may cause difficulties in the research ethics review process, and amplify problems such as variability in the requirements and decisions reached by different research ethics committees.
We aimed to characterize research ethics review of CRTs, examine investigator experiences with the ethics review process, and assess the need for ethics guidelines for CRTs.
An electronic search strategy implemented in MEDLINE was used to identify and randomly sample 300 CRTs published in English language journals from 2000 to 2008. A web-based survey with closed- and open-ended questions was administered to corresponding authors in a series of six contacts.
The survey response rate was 64%. Among 182 of 285 eligible respondents, 91% indicated that they had sought research ethics approval for the identified CRT, although only 70% respondents reported research ethics approval in the published article. Nearly one-third (31%) indicated that they have had to meet with ethics committees to explain aspects of their trials, nearly half (46%) experienced variability in the ethics review process in multijurisdictional trials, and 38% experienced negative impacts of the ethics review process on their trials, including delays in trial initiation (28%), increased costs (10%), compromised ability to recruit participants (16%), and compromised methodological quality (9%). Most respondents (74%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 67%-80%) agreed or strongly agreed that there is a need to develop ethics guidelines for CRTs, and (70%; 95% CI: 63%-77%) that ethics committees could be better informed about distinct ethical issues surrounding CRTs.
Thirty-six percent of authors did not respond to the survey. Due to the absence of comparable results from a representative sample of authors of individually randomized trials, it is unclear to what extent the reported challenges result from the CRT design.
CRT investigators are experiencing challenges in the research ethics review of their trials, including excessive delays, variability in process and outcome, and imposed requirements that can have negative consequences for study conduct. Investigators identified a clear need for ethics guidelines for CRTs and education of research ethics committees about distinct ethical issues in CRTs.
Clinical Trials 01/2013; 10(2):257-68. · 1.92 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Despite the increasing numbers of published trials of quality improvement (QI) interventions in diabetes, little is known about the risk of bias in this literature.
Secondary analysis of a systematic review.
Medline, the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) database (from inception to July 2010) and references of included studies. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised trials assessing 11 predefined QI strategies or financial incentives targeting health systems, healthcare professionals or patients to improve the management of adult outpatients with diabetes.
Risk of bias (low, unclear or high) was assessed for the 142 trials in the review across nine domains using the EPOC version of the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. We used Cochran-Armitage tests for trends to evaluate the improvement over time.
There was no significant improvement over time in any of the risk of bias domains. Attrition bias (loss to follow-up) was the most common source of bias, with 24 trials (17%) having high risk of bias due to incomplete outcome data. Overall, 69 trials (49%) had at least one domain with high risk of bias. Inadequate reporting frequently hampered the risk of bias assessment: allocation sequence was unclear in 82 trials (58%) and allocation concealment was unclear in 78 trials (55%). There were significant reductions neither in the proportions of studies at high risk of bias over time nor in the adequacy of reporting of risk of bias domains.
Nearly half of the included QI trials in this review were judged to have high risk of bias. Such trials have serious limitations that put the findings in question and therefore inhibit evidence-based QI. There is a need to limit the potential for bias when conducting QI trials and improve the quality of reporting of QI trials so that stakeholders have adequate evidence for implementation.
BMJ open. 01/2013; 3(4).
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The Ottawa Ethics of Cluster Trials Consensus Group sets out 15 recommendations for the ethical design and conduct of cluster randomized trials.
PLoS Medicine 11/2012; 9(11):e1001346. · 16.27 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: In the field of implementation research, there is an increased interest in use of theory when designing implementation research studies involving behavior change. In 2003, we initiated a series of five studies to establish a scientific rationale for interventions to translate research findings into clinical practice by exploring the performance of a number of different, commonly used, overlapping behavioral theories and models. We reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of the methods, the performance of the theories, and consider where these methods sit alongside the range of methods for studying healthcare professional behavior change. METHODS: These were five studies of the theory-based cognitions and clinical behaviors (taking dental radiographs, performing dental restorations, placing fissure sealants, managing upper respiratory tract infections without prescribing antibiotics, managing low back pain without ordering lumbar spine x-rays) of random samples of primary care dentists and physicians. Measures were derived for the explanatory theoretical constructs in the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), Social Cognitive Theory (SCT), and Illness Representations specified by the Common Sense Self Regulation Model (CSSRM). We constructed self-report measures of two constructs from Learning Theory (LT), a measure of Implementation Intentions (II), and the Precaution Adoption Process. We collected data on theory-based cognitions (explanatory measures) and two interim outcome measures (stated behavioral intention and simulated behavior) by postal questionnaire survey during the 12-month period to which objective measures of behavior (collected from routine administrative sources) were related. Planned analyses explored the predictive value of theories in explaining variance in intention, behavioral simulation and behavior. RESULTS: Response rates across the five surveys ranged from 21% to 48%; we achieved the target sample size for three of the five surveys. For the predictor variables, the mean construct scores were above the mid-point on the scale with median values across the five behaviors generally being above four out of seven and the range being from 1.53 to 6.01. Across all of the theories, the highest proportion of the variance explained was always for intention and the lowest was for behavior. The Knowledge-Attitudes-Behavior Model performed poorly across all behaviors and dependent variables; CSSRM also performed poorly. For TPB, SCT, II, and LT across the five behaviors, we predicted median R2 of 25% to 42.6% for intention, 6.2% to 16% for behavioral simulation, and 2.4% to 6.3% for behavior. CONCLUSIONS: We operationalized multiple theories measuring across five behaviors. Continuing challenges that emerge from our work are: better specification of behaviors, better operationalization of theories; how best to appropriately extend the range of theories; further assessment of the value of theories in different settings and groups; exploring the implications of these methods for the management of chronic diseases; and moving to experimental designs to allow an understanding of behavior change.
Implementation Science 10/2012; 7(1):99. · 3.10 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) was developed to investigate determinants of specific clinical behaviors and inform the design of interventions to change professional behavior. This framework was used to explore the beliefs of chiropractors in an American Provider Network and two Canadian provinces about their adherence to evidence-based recommendations for spine radiography for uncomplicated back pain. The primary objective of the study was to identify chiropractors' beliefs about managing uncomplicated back pain without x-rays and to explore barriers and facilitators to implementing evidence-based recommendations on lumbar spine x-rays. A secondary objective was to compare chiropractors in the United States and Canada on their beliefs regarding the use of spine x-rays. METHODS: Six focus groups exploring beliefs about managing back pain without x-rays were conducted with a purposive sample. The interview guide was based upon the TDF. Focus groups were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed by two independent assessors using thematic content analysis based on the TDF. RESULTS: Five domains were identified as likely relevant. Key beliefs within these domains included the following: conflicting comments about the potential consequences of not ordering x-rays (risk of missing a pathology, avoiding adverse treatment effects, risks of litigation, determining the treatment plan, and using x-ray-driven techniques contrasted with perceived benefits of minimizing patient radiation exposure and reducing costs; beliefs about consequences); beliefs regarding professional autonomy, professional credibility, lack of standardization, and agreement with guidelines widely varied ( social/professional role & identity); the influence of formal training, colleagues, and patients also appeared to be important factors ( social influences); conflicting comments regarding levels of confidence and comfort in managing patients without x-rays ( belief about capabilities); and guideline awareness and agreements ( knowledge). CONCLUSIONS: Chiropractors' use of diagnostic imaging appears to be influenced by a number of factors. Five key domains may be important considering the presence of conflicting beliefs, evidence of strong beliefs likely to impact the behavior of interest, and high frequency of beliefs. The results will inform the development of a theory-based survey to help identify potential targets for behavioral-change strategies.
Implementation Science 08/2012; 7(1):82. · 3.10 Impact Factor
-
Marko Elovainio,
Nick Steen,
Justin Presseau,
Jill Francis,
Susan Hrisos,
Gillian Hawthorne,
Marie Johnston,
Elaine Stamp,
Margaret Hunter, Jeremy M Grimshaw,
Martin P Eccles
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Background
Type 2 diabetes is an increasingly prevalent illness, and there is considerable variation in the quality of care provided to patients with diabetes in primary care.Objectives
The aim of this study was to explore whether organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviour are associated with the behaviours of clinical staff when providing care for patients with diabetes.Methods
The data were from an ongoing prospective multicenter study, the 'improving Quality of care in Diabetes' (iQuaD) study. Participants (N = 467) were clinical staff in 99 primary care practices in the UK. The outcome measures were six self-reported clinical behaviours: prescribing for glycaemic control, prescribing for blood pressure control, foot examination, giving advice about weight management, providing general education about diabetes and giving advice about self-management. Organizational justice perceptions were collected using a self-administered questionnaire. The associations between organizational justice and behavioural outcomes were tested using linear multilevel regression modelling.ResultsHigher scores on the procedural component of organizational justice were associated with more frequent weight management advice, self-management advice and provision of general education for patients with diabetes. The associations between justice and clinical behaviours were not explained by individual or practice characteristics, but evidence was found for the partial mediating role of organizational citizenship behaviour.Conclusions
Quality improvement efforts aimed at increasing advice and education provision in diabetes management in primary care could target also perceptions of procedural justice.
Family Practice 08/2012; · 1.50 Impact Factor
-
Liz Glidewell,
Ruth Thomas,
Graeme Maclennan,
Debbie Bonetti,
Marie Johnston,
Martin P Eccles,
Richard Edlin,
Nigel B Pitts,
Jan Clarkson,
Nick Steen, Jeremy M Grimshaw
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Healthcare professional response rates to postal questionnaires are declining and this may threaten the validity and generalisability of their findings. Methods to improve response rates do incur costs (resources) and increase the cost of research projects. The aim of these randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was to assess whether 1) incentives, 2) type of reminder and/or 3) reduced response burden improve response rates; and to assess the cost implications of such additional effective interventions. METHODS: Two RCTs were conducted. In RCT A general dental practitioners (dentists) in Scotland were randomised to receive either an incentive; an abridged questionnaire or a full length questionnaire. In RCT B non-responders to a postal questionnaire sent to general medical practitioners (GPs) in the UK were firstly randomised to receive a second full length questionnaire as a reminder or a postcard reminder. Continued non-responders from RCT B were then randomised within their first randomisation to receive a third full length or an abridged questionnaire reminder. The cost-effectiveness of interventions that effectively increased response rates was assessed as a secondary outcome. RESULTS: There was no evidence that an incentive (52% versus 43%, Risk Difference (RD) -8.8 (95%CI [MINUS SIGN]22.5, 4.8); or abridged questionnaire (46% versus 43%, RD [MINUS SIGN]2.9 (95%CI [MINUS SIGN]16.5, 10.7); statistically significantly improved dentist response rates compared to a full length questionnaire in RCT A. In RCT B there was no evidence that a full questionnaire reminder statistically significantly improved response rates compared to a postcard reminder (10.4% versus 7.3%, RD 3 (95%CI [MINUS SIGN]0.1, 6.8). At a second reminder stage, GPs sent the abridged questionnaire responded more often (14.8% versus 7.2%, RD [MINUS SIGN]7.7 (95%CI [MINUS SIGN]12.8, -2.6). GPs who received a postcard reminder followed by an abridged questionnaire were most likely to respond (19.8% versus 6.3%, RD 8.1%, and 9.1% for full/postcard/full, three full or full/full/abridged questionnaire respectively). An abridged questionnaire containing fewer questions following a postcard reminder was the only cost-effective strategy for increasing the response rate ([POUND SIGN]15.99 per response). CONCLUSIONS: When expecting or facing a low response rate to postal questionnaires, researchers should carefully identify the most efficient way to boost their response rate. In these studies, an abridged questionnaire containing fewer questions following a postcard reminder was the only cost-effective strategy. An increase in response rates may be explained by a combination of the number and type of contacts. Increasing the sampling frame may be more cost-effective than interventions to prompt non-responders. However, this may not strengthen the validity and generalisability of the survey findings and affect the representativeness of the sample.
BMC Health Services Research 08/2012; 12(1):250. · 1.66 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Reviews have repeatedly noted important methodological issues in the conduct and reporting of cluster randomized trials (C-RCTs). These reviews usually focus on whether the intra-cluster correlation was explicitly considered in the design and analysis of the C-RCT. However, another important aspect requiring special attention in C-RCTs is the risk for imbalance of covariates at baseline. Imbalance of important covariates at baseline decreases statistical power and precision of the results. Imbalance also reduces face validity and credibility of the trial results. The risk of imbalance is elevated in C-RCTs compared to trials randomizing individuals because of the difficulties in recruiting clusters and the nested nature of correlated patient-level data. A variety of restricted randomization methods have been proposed as way to minimise risk of imbalance. However, there is little guidance regarding how to best restrict randomization for any given C-RCT. The advantages and limitations of different allocation techniques, including stratification, matching, minimization, and covariate-constrained randomization are reviewed as they pertain to C-RCTs to provide investigators with guidance for choosing the best allocation technique for their trial.
Trials 08/2012; 13(1):120. · 2.02 Impact Factor
-
Antonio Gallo,
Charles Weijer,
Angela White, Jeremy M Grimshaw,
Robert Boruch,
Jamie C Brehaut,
Allan Donner,
Martin P Eccles,
Andrew D McRae,
Raphael Saginur,
Merrick Zwarenstein,
Monica Taljaard
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This article is part of a series of papers examining ethical issues in cluster randomized trials (CRTs) in health research. In the introductory paper in this series, we set out six areas of inquiry that must be addressed if the CRT is to be set on a firm ethical foundation. This paper addresses the sixth of the questions posed, namely, what is the role and authority of gatekeepers in CRTs in health research? 'Gatekeepers' are individuals or bodies that represent the interests of cluster members, clusters, or organizations. The need for gatekeepers arose in response to the difficulties in obtaining informed consent because of cluster randomization, cluster-level interventions, and cluster size. In this paper, we call for a more restrictive understanding of the role and authority of gatekeepers.Previous papers in this series have provided solutions to the challenges posed by informed consent in CRTs without the need to invoke gatekeepers. We considered that consent to randomization is not required when cluster members are approached for consent at the earliest opportunity and before any study interventions or data-collection procedures have started. Further, when cluster-level interventions or cluster size means that obtaining informed consent is not possible, a waiver of consent may be appropriate. In this paper, we suggest that the role of gatekeepers in protecting individual interests in CRTs should be limited. Generally, gatekeepers do not have the authority to provide proxy consent for cluster members. When a municipality or other community has a legitimate political authority that is empowered to make such decisions, cluster permission may be appropriate; however, gatekeepers may usefully protect cluster interests in other ways. Cluster consultation may ensure that the CRT addresses local health needs, and is conducted in accord with local values and customs. Gatekeepers may also play an important role in protecting the interests of organizations, such as hospitals, nursing homes, general practices, and schools. In these settings, permission to access the organization relies on resource implications and adherence to institutional policies.
Trials 07/2012; 13:116. · 2.02 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Clinical practice guidelines are one of the foundations of efforts to improve health care. In 1999, we authored a paper about methods to develop guidelines. Since it was published, the methods of guideline development have progressed both in terms of methods and necessary procedures and the context for guideline development has changed with the emergence of guideline clearing houses and large scale guideline production organisations (such as the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence). It therefore seems timely to, in a series of three articles, update and extend our earlier paper. In this third paper we discuss the issues of: reviewing, reporting, and publishing guidelines; updating guidelines; and the two emerging issues of enhancing guideline implementability and how guideline developers should approach dealing with the issue of patients who will be the subject of guidelines having co-morbid conditions.
Implementation Science 07/2012; 7(1):62. · 3.10 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Clinical practice guidelines are one of the foundations of efforts to improve healthcare. In 1999, we authored a paper about methods to develop guidelines. Since it was published, the methods of guideline development have progressed both in terms of methods and necessary procedures and the context for guideline development has changed with the emergence of guideline clearinghouses and large scale guideline production organisations (such as the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence). It therefore seems timely to, in a series of three articles, update and extend our earlier paper. In this second paper, we discuss issues of identifying and synthesizing evidence: deciding what type of evidence and outcomes to include in guidelines; integrating values into a guideline; incorporating economic considerations; synthesis, grading, and presentation of evidence; and moving from evidence to recommendations.
Implementation Science 07/2012; 7:61. · 3.10 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Clinical practice guidelines are one of the foundations of efforts to improve health care. In 1999, we authored a paper about methods to develop guidelines. Since it was published, the methods of guideline development have progressed both in terms of methods and necessary procedures and the context for guideline development has changed with the emergence of guideline clearing houses and large scale guideline production organisations (such as the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence). It therefore seems timely to, in a series of three articles, update and extend our earlier paper. In this first paper we discuss: the target audience(s) for guidelines and their use of guidelines; identifying topics for guidelines; guideline group composition (including consumer involvement) and the processes by which guideline groups function and the important procedural issue of managing conflicts of interest in guideline development.
Implementation Science 07/2012; 7(1):60. · 3.10 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Despite evidence-based recommendations supporting long-term use of cardiac medications in patients post ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), adherence is known to decline over time. Study design: Pragmatic, cluster-randomized controlled trial with blinded outcome assessment and imbedded qualitative process evaluation. Participants: Patients from one health region in Ontario, Canada who undergo a coronary angiogram during their admission for STEMI and who survive their initial hospitalization. Intervention: Recurrent, personalized, educational reminders sent via post on behalf of the interventional cardiologist to the patient, family physician, and pharmacist urging long-term adherence to secondary prevention medications. Comparator: Usual care (no standardized contact between interventional cardiologist and patient or other providers). Allocation: Allocation of eligible patients to intervention or usual care will take place within one week after the angiogram using a computer-generated random sequence. To avoid treatment contamination, patients will be randomized by family physician so that patients treated by the same family physician will be allocated to the same study arm. Outcomes: Primary outcome is the proportion of patients who report taking all relevant classes of cardiac medications twelve months post-STEMI. Secondary outcomes to be measured at three and twelve months post-STEMI include proportions of patients who report: (1) actively taking each cardiac medication class of interest (item-by-item); (2) stopping medications due to side effects; (3) taking one or two or three medication classes concurrently; (4) a perfect Morisky Medication Adherence Score for cardiac medication compliance; and (5) having a discussion with their family physician about long-term adherence to cardiac medications. Self-reported measures of adherence will be validated using administrative data for prescriptions filled. DISCUSSION: This intervention is designed to be easily generalizable. If effective, it could be implemented broadly. If it does not change medication utilization, the process evaluation will offer insights regarding how such an intervention could be optimized in future.
Implementation Science 06/2012; 7(1):54. · 3.10 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Routine pre-operative tests for anesthesia management are often ordered by bothanesthesiologists and surgeons for healthy patients undergoing low-risk surgery. TheTheoretical Domains Framework (TDF) was developed to investigate determinants ofbehaviour and identify potential behaviour change interventions. In this study, the TDF is used to explore anaesthesiologists' and surgeons' perceptions of ordering routine tests forhealthy patients undergoing low-risk surgery. METHODS: Sixteen clinicians (eleven anesthesiologists and five surgeons) throughout Ontario wererecruited. An interview guide based on the TDF was developed to identify beliefs about preoperativetesting practices. Content analysis of physicians' statements into the relevanttheoretical domains was performed. Specific beliefs were identified by grouping similarutterances of the interview participants. Relevant domains were identified by noting thefrequencies of the beliefs reported, presence of conflicting beliefs, and perceived influence onthe performance of the behaviour under investigation. RESULTS: Seven of the twelve domains were identified as likely relevant to changing clinicians'behaviour about pre-operative test ordering for anesthesia management. Key beliefs wereidentified within these domains including: conflicting comments about who was responsiblefor the test-ordering (Social/professional role and identity); inability to cancel tests orderedby fellow physicians (Beliefs about capabilities and social influences); and the problem withtests being completed before the anesthesiologists see the patient (Beliefs about capabilitiesand Environmental context and resources). Often, tests were ordered by an anesthesiologistbased on who may be the attending anesthesiologist on the day of surgery while surgeonsordered tests they thought anesthesiologists may need (Social influences). There were alsoconflicting comments about the potential consequences associated with reducing testing,from negative (delay or cancel patients' surgeries), to indifference (little or no change inpatient outcomes), to positive (save money, avoid unnecessary investigations) (Beliefs aboutconsequences). Further, while most agreed that they are motivated to reduce orderingunnecessary tests (Motivation and goals), there was still a report of a gap between theirmotivation and practice (Behavioural regulation). CONCLUSION: We identified key factors that anesthesiologists and surgeons believe influence whether theyorder pre-operative tests routinely for anesthesia management for a healthy adults undergoinglow-risk surgery. These beliefs identify potential individual, team, and organisation targetsfor behaviour change interventions to reduce unnecessary routine test ordering.
Implementation Science 06/2012; 7(1):52. · 3.10 Impact Factor
-
Andrea C Tricco,
Noah M Ivers, Jeremy M Grimshaw,
David Moher,
Lucy Turner,
James Galipeau,
Ilana Halperin,
Brigitte Vachon,
Tim Ramsay,
Braden Manns,
Marcello Tonelli,
Kaveh Shojania
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The effectiveness of quality improvement (QI) strategies on diabetes care remains unclear. We aimed to assess the effects of QI strategies on glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)), vascular risk management, microvascular complication monitoring, and smoking cessation in patients with diabetes.
We identified studies through Medline, the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care database (from inception to July 2010), and references of included randomised clinical trials. We included trials assessing 11 predefined QI strategies or financial incentives targeting health systems, health-care professionals, or patients to improve management of adult outpatients with diabetes. Two reviewers independently abstracted data and appraised risk of bias.
We reviewed 48 cluster randomised controlled trials, including 2538 clusters and 84,865 patients, and 94 patient randomised controlled trials, including 38,664 patients. In random effects meta-analysis, the QI strategies reduced HbA(1c) by a mean difference of 0·37% (95% CI 0·28-0·45; 120 trials), LDL cholesterol by 0·10 mmol/L (0·05-0.14; 47 trials), systolic blood pressure by 3·13 mm Hg (2·19-4·06, 65 trials), and diastolic blood pressure by 1·55 mm Hg (0·95-2·15, 61 trials) versus usual care. We noted larger effects when baseline concentrations were greater than 8·0% for HbA(1c), 2·59 mmol/L for LDL cholesterol, and 80 mm Hg for diastolic and 140 mm Hg for systolic blood pressure. The effectiveness of QI strategies varied depending on baseline HbA(1c) control. QI strategies increased the likelihood that patients received aspirin (11 trials; relative risk [RR] 1·33, 95% CI 1·21-1·45), antihypertensive drugs (ten trials; RR 1·17, 1·01-1·37), and screening for retinopathy (23 trials; RR 1·22, 1·13-1·32), renal function (14 trials; RR 128, 1·13-1·44), and foot abnormalities (22 trials; RR 1·27, 1·16-1·39). However, statin use (ten trials; RR 1·12, 0·99-1·28), hypertension control (18 trials; RR 1·01, 0·96-1·07), and smoking cessation (13 trials; RR 1·13, 0·99-1·29) were not significantly increased.
Many trials of QI strategies showed improvements in diabetes care. Interventions targeting the system of chronic disease management along with patient-mediated QI strategies should be an important component of interventions aimed at improving diabetes management. Interventions solely targeting health-care professionals seem to be beneficial only if baseline HbA(1c) control is poor.
Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-term Care and the Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research (now Alberta Innovates--Health Solutions).
The Lancet 06/2012; 379(9833):2252-61. · 38.28 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: One of the most consistent findings from clinical and health services research is the failure to translate research into practice and policy. As a result of these evidence-practice and policy gaps, patients fail to benefit optimally from advances in healthcare and are exposed to unnecessary risks of iatrogenic harms, and healthcare systems are exposed to unnecessary expenditure resulting in significant opportunity costs. Over the last decade, there has been increasing international policy and research attention on how to reduce the evidence-practice and policy gap. In this paper, we summarise the current concepts and evidence to guide knowledge translation activities, defined as T2 research (the translation of new clinical knowledge into improved health). We structure the article around five key questions: what should be transferred; to whom should research knowledge be transferred; by whom should research knowledge be transferred; how should research knowledge be transferred; and, with what effect should research knowledge be transferred?
We suggest that the basic unit of knowledge translation should usually be up-to-date systematic reviews or other syntheses of research findings. Knowledge translators need to identify the key messages for different target audiences and to fashion these in language and knowledge translation products that are easily assimilated by different audiences. The relative importance of knowledge translation to different target audiences will vary by the type of research and appropriate endpoints of knowledge translation may vary across different stakeholder groups. There are a large number of planned knowledge translation models, derived from different disciplinary, contextual (i.e., setting), and target audience viewpoints. Most of these suggest that planned knowledge translation for healthcare professionals and consumers is more likely to be successful if the choice of knowledge translation strategy is informed by an assessment of the likely barriers and facilitators. Although our evidence on the likely effectiveness of different strategies to overcome specific barriers remains incomplete, there is a range of informative systematic reviews of interventions aimed at healthcare professionals and consumers (i.e., patients, family members, and informal carers) and of factors important to research use by policy makers.
There is a substantial (if incomplete) evidence base to guide choice of knowledge translation activities targeting healthcare professionals and consumers. The evidence base on the effects of different knowledge translation approaches targeting healthcare policy makers and senior managers is much weaker but there are a profusion of innovative approaches that warrant further evaluation.
Implementation Science 05/2012; 7:50. · 3.10 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: There is little systematic operational guidance about how best to develop complex interventions to reduce the gap between practice and evidence. This article is one in a Series of articles documenting the development and use of the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to advance the science of implementation research.
The intervention was developed considering three main components: theory, evidence, and practical issues. We used a four-step approach, consisting of guiding questions, to direct the choice of the most appropriate components of an implementation intervention: Who needs to do what, differently? Using a theoretical framework, which barriers and enablers need to be addressed? Which intervention components (behaviour change techniques and mode(s) of delivery) could overcome the modifiable barriers and enhance the enablers? And how can behaviour change be measured and understood?
A complex implementation intervention was designed that aimed to improve acute low back pain management in primary care. We used the TDF to identify the barriers and enablers to the uptake of evidence into practice and to guide the choice of intervention components. These components were then combined into a cohesive intervention. The intervention was delivered via two facilitated interactive small group workshops. We also produced a DVD to distribute to all participants in the intervention group. We chose outcome measures in order to assess the mediating mechanisms of behaviour change.
We have illustrated a four-step systematic method for developing an intervention designed to change clinical practice based on a theoretical framework. The method of development provides a systematic framework that could be used by others developing complex implementation interventions. While this framework should be iteratively adjusted and refined to suit other contexts and settings, we believe that the four-step process should be maintained as the primary framework to guide researchers through a comprehensive intervention development process.
Implementation Science 04/2012; 7:38. · 3.10 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Lumping and splitting refer to the scope of a systematic review question, where lumped reviews are broad and split are narrow. The objective was to determine the frequency of lumping and splitting in systematic reviews of reminder interventions, assess how review authors justified their decisions about the scope of their reviews, and explore how review authors cited other systematic reviews in the field.
A descriptive approach involving a content analysis and citation bibliometric study of an overview of 31 systematic reviews of reminder interventions.
Twenty-four of 31 reminder reviews were split, most frequently across one category (population, intervention, study design, outcome). Review authors poorly justified their decisions about the scope of their reviews and tended not to cite other similar reviews.
This study demonstrates that for systematic reviews of reminder interventions, splitting is more common than lumping, with most reviews split by condition or targeted behavior. Review authors poorly justify the need for their review and do not cite relevant literature to put their reviews in the context of the available evidence. These factors may have contributed to a proliferation of systematic reviews of reminders and an overall disorganization of the literature.
Journal of clinical epidemiology 04/2012; 65(7):756-63. · 2.96 Impact Factor
-
Gillian Hawthorne,
Susan Hrisos,
Elaine Stamp,
Marko Elovainio,
Jill J Francis, Jeremy M Grimshaw,
Margaret Hunter,
Marie Johnston,
Justin Presseau,
Nick Steen,
Martin P Eccles
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Although most people with Type 2 diabetes receive their diabetes care in primary care, only a limited amount is known about the quality of diabetes care in this setting. We investigated the provision and receipt of diabetes care delivered in UK primary care.
Postal surveys with all healthcare professionals and a random sample of 100 patients with Type 2 diabetes from 99 UK primary care practices.
326/361 (90.3%) doctors, 163/186 (87.6%) nurses and 3591 patients (41.8%) returned a questionnaire. Clinicians reported giving advice about lifestyle behaviours (e.g. 88% would routinely advise about calorie restriction; 99.6% about increasing exercise) more often than patients reported having received it (43% and 42%) and correlations between clinician and patient report were low. Patients' reported levels of confidence about managing their diabetes were moderately high; a median (range) of 21% (3% to 39%) of patients reporting being not confident about various areas of diabetes self-management.
Primary care practices have organisational structures in place and are, as judged by routine quality indicators, delivering high quality care. There remain evidence-practice gaps in the care provided and in the self confidence that patients have for key aspects of self management and further research is needed to address these issues. Future research should use robust designs and appropriately designed studies to investigate how best to improve this situation.
PLoS ONE 01/2012; 7(7):e41562. · 4.09 Impact Factor
