BACKGROUND: The underuse or overuse of knowledge products leads to waste in healthcare, and primary care is no exception.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to characterize which knowledge products are frequently implemented, the implementation strategies used in primary care, and the implementation outcomes that are measured.
METHODS: We performed a systematic review of systematic reviews (SR) using the Cochrane systematic approach to include eligible SR. The inclusion criteria were: any primary care contexts; healthcare professionals and patients; any EPOC implementation strategies of specified knowledge products; any comparator; and any implementation outcomes based on the Proctor framework. We searched the Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Ovid PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases from their inception to October 2019, without any restriction. We searched the references of the included SR. Pairs of reviewers independently performed selection, data extraction and methodological quality assessment with AMSTAR 2. Data extraction was informed by EPOC taxonomy for implementation strategies and the Proctor framework for implementation outcomes. We performed a descriptive analysis and summarized the results using a narrative synthesis.
RESULTS: Of the 11,101 records identified, 81 SR were included. Forty-seven SR involved healthcare professionals alone. Fifteen SR were of high or moderate methodological quality. Most of them addressed one type of knowledge product (56/81), common clinical practice guidelines (26/56) or management, and behavioural or pharmacological health interventions (24/56). Mixed strategies were used for implementation (67/81), predominantly educational-based (meetings in 60/81, materials distribution in 59/81, and academic detailing in 45/81), reminder (53/81) and audit and feedback (40/81) strategies. Education meetings (P=.13) and academic detailing (P=.11) seem to be more used when the population is composed of Healthcare professionals alone. The improvement of the adoption of knowledge products was the most commonly measured outcome (72/81). The evidence level was reported in 10/81 SR on 62 outcomes (including 48 improvement of adoption), of which 16 outcomes were of moderate or high level.
CONCLUSIONS: Clinical practice guidelines and management, behavioural or pharmacological health interventions are the most commonly implemented knowledge products through the mixed use of educational, reminders and audit and feedback strategies. There is need for a strong methodology for the SR of RCTs to explore their effectiveness and the whole cascade of implementation outcomes.
CLINICALTRIAL: Not applicable.
BACKGROUND: A key function of health systems is implementing interventions to improve health, but coverage of essential health interventions remains low in low-income countries. Implementing interventions can be challenging, particularly if it entails complex changes in clinical routines; in collaborative patterns among different healthcare providers and disciplines; in the behaviour of providers, patients or other stakeholders; or in the organisation of care. Decision-makers may use a range of strategies to implement health interventions, and these choices should be based on evidence of the strategies' effectiveness.
OBJECTIVES: To provide an overview of the available evidence from up-to-date systematic reviews about the effects of implementation strategies for health systems in low-income countries. Secondary objectives include identifying needs and priorities for future evaluations and systematic reviews on alternative implementation strategies and informing refinements of the framework for implementation strategies presented in the overview.
METHODS: We searched Health Systems Evidence in November 2010 and PDQ-Evidence up to December 2016 for systematic reviews. We did not apply any date, language or publication status limitations in the searches. We included well-conducted systematic reviews of studies that assessed the effects of implementation strategies on professional practice and patient outcomes and that were published after April 2005. We excluded reviews with limitations important enough to compromise the reliability of the review findings. Two overview authors independently screened reviews, extracted data and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. We prepared SUPPORT Summaries for eligible reviews, including key messages, 'Summary of findings' tables (using GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence) and assessments of the relevance of findings to low-income countries.
MAIN RESULTS: We identified 7272 systematic reviews and included 39 of them in this overview. An additional four reviews provided supplementary information. Of the 39 reviews, 32 had only minor limitations and 7 had important methodological limitations. Most studies in the reviews were from high-income countries. There were no studies from low-income countries in eight reviews.Implementation strategies addressed in the reviews were grouped into four categories – strategies targeting:1. healthcare organisations (e.g. strategies to change organisational culture; 1 review);2. healthcare workers by type of intervention (e.g. printed educational materials; 14 reviews);3. healthcare workers to address a specific problem (e.g. unnecessary antibiotic prescription; 9 reviews);4. healthcare recipients (e.g. medication adherence; 15 reviews).Overall, we found the following interventions to have desirable effects on at least one outcome with moderate- or high-certainty evidence and no moderate- or high-certainty evidence of undesirable effects.1.Strategies targeted at healthcare workers: educational meetings, nutrition training of health workers, educational outreach, practice facilitation, local opinion leaders, audit and feedback, and tailored interventions.2.Strategies targeted at healthcare workers for specific types of problems: training healthcare workers to be more patient-centred in clinical consultations, use of birth kits, strategies such as clinician education and patient education to reduce antibiotic prescribing in ambulatory care settings, and in-service neonatal emergency care training.3. Strategies targeted at healthcare recipients: mass media interventions to increase uptake of HIV testing; intensive self-management and adherence, intensive disease management programmes to improve health literacy; behavioural interventions and mobile phone text messages for adherence to antiretroviral therapy; a one time incentive to start or continue tuberculosis prophylaxis; default reminders for patients being treated for active tuberculosis; use of sectioned polythene bags for adherence to malaria medication; community-based health education, and reminders and recall strategies to increase vaccination uptake; interventions to increase uptake of cervical screening (invitations, education, counselling, access to health promotion nurse and intensive recruitment); health insurance information and application support.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Reliable systematic reviews have evaluated a wide range of strategies for implementing evidence-based interventions in low-income countries. Most of the available evidence is focused on strategies targeted at healthcare workers and healthcare recipients and relates to process-based outcomes. Evidence of the effects of strategies targeting healthcare organisations is scarce.
BACKGROUND: One of the greatest challenges in healthcare is how to best translate research evidence into clinical practice, which includes how to change health-care professionals' behaviours. A commonly held view is that multifaceted interventions are more effective than single-component interventions. The purpose of this study was to conduct an overview of systematic reviews to evaluate the effectiveness of multifaceted interventions in comparison to single-component interventions in changing health-care professionals' behaviour in clinical settings.
METHODS: The Rx for Change database, which consists of quality-appraised systematic reviews of interventions to change health-care professional behaviour, was used to identify systematic reviews for the overview. Dual, independent screening and data extraction was conducted. Included reviews used three different approaches (of varying methodological robustness) to evaluate the effectiveness of multifaceted interventions: (1) effect size/dose-response statistical analyses, (2) direct (non-statistical) comparisons of multifaceted to single interventions and (3) indirect comparisons of multifaceted to single interventions.
RESULTS: Twenty-five reviews were included in the overview. Three reviews provided effect size/dose-response statistical analyses of the effectiveness of multifaceted interventions; no statistical evidence of a relationship between the number of intervention components and the effect size was found. Eight reviews reported direct (non-statistical) comparisons of multifaceted to single-component interventions; four of these reviews found multifaceted interventions to be generally effective compared to single interventions, while the remaining four reviews found that multifaceted interventions had either mixed effects or were generally ineffective compared to single interventions. Twenty-three reviews indirectly compared the effectiveness of multifaceted to single interventions; nine of which also reported either a statistical (dose-response) analysis (N = 2) or a non-statistical direct comparison (N = 7). The majority (N = 15) of reviews reporting indirect comparisons of multifaceted to single interventions showed similar effectiveness for multifaceted and single interventions when compared to controls. Of the remaining eight reviews, six found single interventions to be generally effective while multifaceted had mixed effectiveness.
CONCLUSION: This overview of systematic reviews offers no compelling evidence that multifaceted interventions are more effective than single-component interventions.
BACKGROUND: Effective implementation strategies are needed to optimize advancements in the fields of cancer diagnosis, treatment, survivorship, and end-of-life care. We conducted a review of systematic reviews to better understand the evidentiary base of implementation strategies in cancer control.
METHODS: Using three databases, we conducted a search and identified English-language systematic reviews published between 2005 and 2010 that targeted consumer, professional, organizational, regulatory, or financial interventions, tested exclusively or partially in a cancer context (primary focus); generic or non-cancer-specific reviews were also considered. Data were extracted, appraised, and analyzed by members of the research team, and research ideas to advance the field were proposed.
RESULTS: Thirty-four systematic reviews providing 41 summaries of evidence on 19 unique interventions comprised the evidence base. AMSTAR quality ratings ranged between 2 and 10. Team members rated most of the interventions as promising and in need of further research, and 64 research ideas were identified.
CONCLUSIONS: While many interventions show promise of effectiveness in the cancer-control context, few reviews were able to conclude definitively in favor of or against a specific intervention. We discuss the complexity of implementation research and offer suggestions to advance the science in this area.
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The gap between research findings and clinical practice is well documented and a range of interventions has been developed to increase the implementation of research into clinical practice. FINDINGS: A review of systematic reviews of the effectiveness of interventions designed to increase the use of research in clinical practice. A search for relevant systematic reviews was conducted of Medline and the Cochrane Database of Reviews 1998-2009. 13 systematic reviews containing 313 primary studies were included. Four strategy types are identified: audit and feedback; computerised decision support; opinion leaders; and multifaceted interventions. Nine of the reviews reported on multifaceted interventions. This review highlights the small effects of single interventions such as audit and feedback, computerised decision support and opinion leaders. Systematic reviews of multifaceted interventions claim an improvement in effectiveness over single interventions, with effect sizes ranging from small to moderate. This review found that a number of published systematic reviews fail to state whether the recommended practice change is based on the best available research evidence. CONCLUSIONS: This overview of systematic reviews updates the body of knowledge relating to the effectiveness of key mechanisms for improving clinical practice and service development. Multifaceted interventions are more likely to improve practice than single interventions such as audit and feedback. This review identified a small literature focusing explicitly on getting research evidence into clinical practice. It emphasizes the importance of ensuring that primary studies and systematic reviews are precise about the extent to which the reported interventions focus on changing practice based on research evidence (as opposed to other information codified in guidelines and education materials).
There is now a plethora of different quality improvement strategies (QIS) for optimizing health care, some clinician/patient driven, others manager/policy-maker driven. Which of these are most effective remains unclear despite expressed concerns about potential for QIS-related patient harm and wasting of resources. The objective of this study was to review published literature assessing the relative effectiveness of different QIS. Data sources comprising PubMed Clinical Queries, Cochrane Library and its Effective Practice and Organization of Care database, and HealthStar were searched for studies of QIS between January 1985 and February 2008 using search terms based on an a priori QIS classification suggested by experts. Systematic reviews of controlled trials were selected in determining effect sizes for specific QIS, which were compared as a narrative meta-review. Clinician/patient driven QIS were associated with stronger evidence of efficacy and larger effect sizes than manager/policy-maker driven QIS. The most effective strategies (>10% absolute increase in appropriate care or equivalent measure) included clinician-directed audit and feedback cycles, clinical decision support systems, specialty outreach programmes, chronic disease management programmes, continuing professional education based on interactive small-group case discussions, and patient-mediated clinician reminders. Pay-for-performance schemes directed to clinician groups and organizational process redesign were modestly effective. Other manager/policy-maker driven QIS including continuous quality improvement programmes, risk and safety management systems, public scorecards and performance reports, external accreditation, and clinical governance arrangements have not been adequately evaluated with regard to effectiveness. QIS are heterogeneous and methodological flaws in much of the evaluative literature limit validity and generalizability of results. Based on current best available evidence, clinician/patient driven QIS appear to be more effective than manager/policy-maker driven QIS although the latter have, in many instances, attracted insufficient robust evaluations to accurately determine their comparative effectiveness.
OBJECTIVE: To establish the effectiveness of clinical guideline implementation strategies. Data sources/study setting Systematic reviews in full text, English language, 1987-2007, reporting any measure of clinical process change or cost-benefit analysis. STUDY DESIGN: Overview of secondary evidence DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Independent critical appraisal using AMSTAR, primary author undertaking all data extraction using a purpose-built form. Principal findings We identified 144 potential papers, from which 33 systematic reviews were included. These reflected 714 primary studies involving 22 512 clinicians, in a range of health care settings. Implementation strategies were varied, rarely comparable, with variable outcomes. Effective implementation strategies included multifaceted interventions, interactive education and clinical reminder systems. Didactic education and passive dissemination strategies were ineffective. Cost-effectiveness studies were rare. CONCLUSIONS: Successful guideline implementation strategies should be multifaceted, and actively engage clinicians throughout the process.
There are many systematic reviews of continuing education programmes and educational strategies for quality improvement in health care. Most of the reviewed studies are one-off evaluations rather than impact evaluations with long-term follow-up. There are few systematic reviews of organisational, financial and regulatory interventions, and few high-quality studies. These interventions are probably as or more important than educational strategies, although they are less well evaluated. Few studies have been undertaken in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) or that address maternal and child health (MCH). Thus, the results of the available studies and reviews need to be interpreted cautiously when applied to LMIC. Interactive workshops, reminders and multifaceted interventions can improve professional practice, and they generally have moderate effects. Educational outreach visits consistently improve prescribing but have variable effects on other behaviours. Audit and feedback interventions have variable effects on professional practice, but most often these are small to moderate effects. Mass-media and patient-mediated interventions may change professional practice. Multifaceted interventions that combine several quality-improvement strategies are also effective but may not be more so than single interventions. While all of these strategies are applicable to MCH in LMIC, the applicability of the results to rural settings, in particular, may be limited. Use of these strategies could exacerbate inequalities, and this should be taken into consideration when planning implementation. Scaling up and sustainability may be difficult to achieve in LMIC contexts and need careful consideration. The use of financial interventions has not been well studied; financial incentives and disincentives may be difficult to use effectively and efficiently, although their impact on practice needs to be considered. Organisational interventions are likely to be important, given that there are often underlying organisational or system problems. Regulatory interventions have not been well evaluated, but may sometimes be both inexpensive and effective. There are no 'magic bullets' or simple solutions for ensuring the quality of health care services. Interventions should be selected or tailored to address the underlying reasons for a failure to deliver effective services. Decision-makers should select the most appropriate interventions for specific problems. This requires a governance structure that clearly assigns responsibility for quality-improvement activities, priority setting, selection and design of interventions, and evaluation.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of physician continuing medical education (CME) is to help them keep abreast of advances in patient care, to accept new more-beneficial care, and discontinue use of existing lower-benefit diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. The goal of this review was to examine effectiveness of current CME tools and techniques in changing physician clinical practices and improving patient health outcomes.
METHODS: Results of published systematic reviews were examined to determine the spectrum from most- to least-effective CME techniques. We searched multiple databases, from 1 January 1984 to 30 October 2004, for English-language, peer-reviewed meta-analyses and other systematic reviews of CME programs that alter physician behavior and/or patient outcomes.
RESULTS: Twenty-six reviews met inclusion criteria, that is, were either formal meta-analyses or other systematic reviews. Interactive techniques (audit/feedback, academic detailing/outreach, and reminders) are the most effective at simultaneously changing physician care and patient outcomes. Clinical practice guidelines and opinion leaders are less effective. Didactic presentations and distributing printed information only have little or no beneficial effect in changing physician practice.
CONCLUSIONS: Even though the most-effective CME techniques have been proven, use of least-effective ones predominates. Such use of ineffective CME likely reduces patient care quality and raises costs for all, the worst of both worlds.
OBJECTIVES: Primary care providers (e.g., family physicians, pediatricians, registered nurses, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners) could play a pivotal role in the provision of preventive services, especially for very young children (younger than 3 years old) and population groups with limited access to dental care. Given the current problems with access to dental care among low-income Americans, we contend there is a need to involve nondental primary health care providers in screening for and preventing oral health problems. The objective of this overview is to present findings from systematic reviews on the efficacy of continuing medical education, printed educational material, academic outreach, reminders, and local opinion leaders on the adoption of new knowledge and practices by primary care providers.
METHODS: A search was conducted using the Cochrane Library and MEDLINE. The search aimed to locate systematic reviews published between January 1988 and March 2003. Two researchers independently extracted data and assessed study quality using a modified version of the QUOROM statement.
RESULTS: Eleven systematic reviews were included in this overview. The evidence from the included systematic reviews showed that formal continuing medical education (CME) and distributing educational materials did not effectively change primary care providers' behaviors. There are effective interventions available to increase knowledge and change behaviors of primary care providers, such as small group discussion, interactive workshops, educational outreach visits, and reminders.
CONCLUSION: There is a limited knowledge base on the efficacy of the selected interventions on oral health screening by primary care providers. Considering the potential role of primary care providers in improving oral health of underserved populations, this research area should receive more attention.
The underuse or overuse of knowledge products leads to waste in healthcare, and primary care is no exception.
OBJECTIVE:
We aimed to characterize which knowledge products are frequently implemented, the implementation strategies used in primary care, and the implementation outcomes that are measured.
METHODS:
We performed a systematic review of systematic reviews (SR) using the Cochrane systematic approach to include eligible SR. The inclusion criteria were: any primary care contexts; healthcare professionals and patients; any EPOC implementation strategies of specified knowledge products; any comparator; and any implementation outcomes based on the Proctor framework. We searched the Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Ovid PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases from their inception to October 2019, without any restriction. We searched the references of the included SR. Pairs of reviewers independently performed selection, data extraction and methodological quality assessment with AMSTAR 2. Data extraction was informed by EPOC taxonomy for implementation strategies and the Proctor framework for implementation outcomes. We performed a descriptive analysis and summarized the results using a narrative synthesis.
RESULTS:
Of the 11,101 records identified, 81 SR were included. Forty-seven SR involved healthcare professionals alone. Fifteen SR were of high or moderate methodological quality. Most of them addressed one type of knowledge product (56/81), common clinical practice guidelines (26/56) or management, and behavioural or pharmacological health interventions (24/56). Mixed strategies were used for implementation (67/81), predominantly educational-based (meetings in 60/81, materials distribution in 59/81, and academic detailing in 45/81), reminder (53/81) and audit and feedback (40/81) strategies. Education meetings (P=.13) and academic detailing (P=.11) seem to be more used when the population is composed of Healthcare professionals alone. The improvement of the adoption of knowledge products was the most commonly measured outcome (72/81). The evidence level was reported in 10/81 SR on 62 outcomes (including 48 improvement of adoption), of which 16 outcomes were of moderate or high level.
CONCLUSIONS:
Clinical practice guidelines and management, behavioural or pharmacological health interventions are the most commonly implemented knowledge products through the mixed use of educational, reminders and audit and feedback strategies. There is need for a strong methodology for the SR of RCTs to explore their effectiveness and the whole cascade of implementation outcomes.
