BACKGROUND: As a source of readily available evidence, rigorously synthesized and interpreted by expert clinicians and methodologists, clinical guidelines are part of an evidence-based practice toolkit, which, transformed into practice recommendations, have the potential to improve both the process of care and patient outcomes. In Brazil, the process of development and updating of the clinical guidelines for the Brazilian Unified Health System (Sistema Único de Saúde, SUS) is already well systematized by the Ministry of Health. However, the implementation process of those guidelines has not yet been discussed and well structured. Therefore, the first step of this project and the primary objective of this study was to summarize the evidence on the effectiveness of strategies used to promote clinical practice guideline implementation and dissemination.
METHODS: This overview used systematic review methodology to locate and evaluate published systematic reviews regarding strategies for clinical practice guideline implementation and adhered to the PRISMA guidelines for systematic review (PRISMA).
RESULTS: This overview identified 36 systematic reviews regarding 30 strategies targeting healthcare organizations, healthcare providers and patients to promote guideline implementation. The most reported interventions were educational materials, educational meetings, reminders, academic detailing and audit and feedback. Care pathways-single intervention, educational meeting-single intervention, organizational culture, and audit and feedback-both strategies implemented in combination with others-were strategies categorized as generally effective from the systematic reviews. In the meta-analyses, when used alone, organizational culture, educational intervention and reminders proved to be effective in promoting physicians' adherence to the guidelines. When used in conjunction with other strategies, organizational culture also proved to be effective. For patient-related outcomes, education intervention showed effective results for disease target results at a short and long term.
CONCLUSION: This overview provides a broad summary of the best evidence on guideline implementation. Even if the included literature highlights the various limitations related to the lack of standardization, the methodological quality of the studies, and especially the lack of conclusion about the superiority of one strategy over another, the summary of the results provided by this study provides information on strategies that have been most widely studied in the last few years and their effectiveness in the context in which they were applied. Therefore, this panorama can support strategy decision-making adequate for SUS and other health systems, seeking to positively impact on the appropriate use of guidelines, healthcare outcomes and the sustainability of the SUS.
Síntesis amplia/ Revisión panorámica de revisiones sistemáticas
BACKGROUND: Reviews of qualitative studies allow for deeper understanding of concepts and findings beyond the single qualitative studies. Concerns on study reporting quality led to the publication of the COREQ-guidelines for qualitative studies in 2007, followed by the ENTREQ-guidelines for qualitative reviews in 2012. The aim of this meta-review is to: 1) investigate the uptake of the COREQ- and ENTREQ- checklists in qualitative reviews; and 2) compare the quality of reporting of the primary qualitative studies included within these reviews prior- and post COREQ-publication.
METHODS: Reviews were searched on 02-Sept-2020 and categorized as (1) COREQ- or (2) ENTREQ-using, (3) using both, or (4) non-COREQ/ENTREQ. Proportions of usage were calculated over time. COREQ-scores of the primary studies included in these reviews were compared prior- and post COREQ-publication using T-test with Bonferroni correction.
RESULTS: 1.695 qualitative reviews were included (222 COREQ, 369 ENTREQ, 62 both COREQ/ENTREQ and 1.042 non-COREQ/ENTREQ), spanning 12 years (2007-2019) demonstrating an exponential publication rate. The uptake of the ENTREQ in reviews is higher than the COREQ (respectively 28% and 17%), and increases over time. COREQ-scores could be extracted from 139 reviews (including 2.775 appraisals). Reporting quality improved following the COREQ-publication with 13 of the 32 signalling questions showing improvement; the average total score increased from 15.15 to 17.74 (p-value < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: The number of qualitative reviews increased exponentially, but the uptake of the COREQ and ENTREQ was modest overall. Primary qualitative studies show a positive trend in reporting quality, which may have been facilitated by the publication of the COREQ.
Síntesis amplia/ Revisión panorámica de revisiones sistemáticas
AIM: Integrated care commonly involves provision of comprehensive community-based care for people with chronic conditions. It is anticipated that implementation of integrated care, with a proactive approach to management of chronic conditions, will reduce reliance on hospital and emergency department (ED) services. The aim of this rapid review was to summarize the best available evidence on the impact of integrated care for patients with chronic conditions on hospital and ED utilization and investigate trends in outcomes over time.
METHODS: Given the large body of literature available on this topic, this rapid review considered existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses that included adults with chronic conditions. Any model of integrated care that involved management of patients across the continuum of care, with the aim to provide more care in community settings, was considered for inclusion. A search of PubMed, CINAHL, Google Advanced, and websites of international healthcare provider organizations was conducted to locate relevant published and gray literature.
RESULTS: A total of 13 systematic reviews were included. Overall, evidence suggests that integrated care may reduce the risk of hospitalization, with reviews including patients with diverse chronic conditions showing a 19% reduction. Integrated care appears effective in reducing readmissions for patients with heart failure, with an absolute risk reduction of 8% for first and 19% for subsequent rehospitalization. For ED presentations, evidence indicates that integrated care has no effect overall but may reduce ED visits for patients aged 65 years or more. For patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, integrated care was associated with reductions in length of stay ranging from 2.5 to 4 days. Studies with shorter follow-up, from 3 to 12 months, in general appeared to show a greater impact of integrated care than studies with longer follow-up of 18 months or more.
CONCLUSION: The evidence identified suggests integrated care generally reduces utilization of hospital services. In some instances, there were no differences observed between integrated care and usual care, but no included reviews reported increased utilization of these services. The impact of integrated care may be greater in the short-term, given the ultimate deterioration associated with advanced chronic disease which may negate any long-term benefits.
Síntesis amplia/ Revisión panorámica de revisiones sistemáticas
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.
Síntesis amplia/ Revisión panorámica de revisiones sistemáticas
BACKGROUND: One target of the Sustainable Development Goals is to achieve "universal health coverage, including financial risk protection, access to quality essential health-care services and access to safe, effective, quality and affordable essential medicines and vaccines for all". A fundamental concern of governments in striving for this goal is how to finance such a health system. This concern is very relevant for low-income countries.
OBJECTIVES: To provide an overview of the evidence from up-to-date systematic reviews about the effects of financial arrangements for health systems in low-income countries. Secondary objectives include identifying needs and priorities for future evaluations and systematic reviews on financial arrangements, and informing refinements in the framework for financial arrangements presented in the overview.
METHODS: We searched Health Systems Evidence in November 2010 and PDQ-Evidence up to 17 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 financial arrangements on patient outcomes (health and health behaviours), the quality or utilisation of healthcare services, resource use, healthcare provider outcomes (such as sick leave), or social outcomes (such as poverty, employment, or financial burden of patients, e.g. out-of-pocket payment, catastrophic disease expenditure) and that were published after April 2005. We excluded reviews with limitations important enough to compromise the reliability of the 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 reviews and included 15 in this overview, on: collection of funds (2 reviews), insurance schemes (1 review), purchasing of services (1 review), recipient incentives (6 reviews), and provider incentives (5 reviews). The reviews were published between 2008 and 2015; focused on 13 subcategories; and reported results from 276 studies: 115 (42%) randomised trials, 11 (4%) non-randomised trials, 23 (8%) controlled before-after studies, 51 (19%) interrupted time series, 9 (3%) repeated measures, and 67 (24%) other non-randomised studies. Forty-three per cent (119/276) of the studies included in the reviews took place in low- and middle-income countries. Collection of funds: the effects of changes in user fees on utilisation and equity are uncertain (very low-certainty evidence). It is also uncertain whether aid delivered under the Paris Principles (ownership, alignment, harmonisation, managing for results, and mutual accountability) improves health outcomes compared to aid delivered without conforming to those principles (very low-certainty evidence). Insurance schemes: community-based health insurance may increase service utilisation (low-certainty evidence), but the effects on health outcomes are uncertain (very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether social health insurance improves utilisation of health services or health outcomes (very low-certainty evidence). Purchasing of services: it is uncertain whether increasing salaries of public sector healthcare workers improves the quantity or quality of their work (very low-certainty evidence). Recipient incentives: recipient incentives may improve adherence to long-term treatments (low-certainty evidence), but it is uncertain whether they improve patient outcomes. One-time recipient incentives probably improve patient return for start or continuation of treatment (moderate-certainty evidence) and may improve return for tuberculosis test readings (low-certainty evidence). However, incentives may not improve completion of tuberculosis prophylaxis, and it is uncertain whether they improve completion of treatment for active tuberculosis. Conditional cash transfer programmes probably lead to an increase in service utilisation (moderate-certainty evidence), but their effects on health outcomes are uncertain. Vouchers may improve health service utilisation (low-certainty evidence), but the effects on health outcomes are uncertain (very low-certainty evidence). Introducing a restrictive cap may decrease use of medicines for symptomatic conditions and overall use of medicines, may decrease insurers' expenditures on medicines (low-certainty evidence), and has uncertain effects on emergency department use, hospitalisations, and use of outpatient care (very low-certainty evidence). Reference pricing, maximum pricing, and index pricing for drugs have mixed effects on drug expenditures by patients and insurers as well as the use of brand and generic drugs. Provider incentives: the effects of provider incentives are uncertain (very low-certainty evidence), including: the effects of provider incentives on the quality of care provided by primary care physicians or outpatient referrals from primary to secondary care, incentives for recruiting and retaining health professionals to serve in remote areas, and the effects of pay-for-performance on provider performance, the utilisation of services, patient outcomes, or resource use in low-income countries.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Research based on sound systematic review methods has evaluated numerous financial arrangements relevant to low-income countries, targeting different levels of the health systems and assessing diverse outcomes. However, included reviews rarely reported social outcomes, resource use, equity impacts, or undesirable effects. We also identified gaps in primary research because of uncertainty about applicability of the evidence to low-income countries. Financial arrangements for which the effects are uncertain include external funding (aid), caps and co-payments, pay-for-performance, and provider incentives. Further studies evaluating the effects of these arrangements are needed in low-income countries. Systematic reviews should include all outcomes that are relevant to decision-makers and to people affected by changes in financial arrangements.
Síntesis amplia/ Revisión panorámica de revisiones sistemáticas
OBJETIVO: Describir las intervenciones de política que tienen como objetivo reducir el uso de ED y estimar su efectividad. MÉTODOS: Revisión narrativa mediante la búsqueda en tres bases de datos electrónicas para trabajos de revisión de literatura científica publicados entre 2010 y octubre de 2015. La calidad de los estudios incluidos se evaluó con AMSTAR y se aplicó una síntesis narrativa de los trabajos recuperados. RESULTADOS: Veintitrés publicaciones incluyeron seis tipos de intervenciones: (1) participación en los costos; (2) fortalecimiento de la atención primaria; (3) desviación prehospitalaria (incluyendo triaje telefónico); (4) coordinación; (5) apoyo a la educación y la autogestión; (6) barreras para acceder a los departamentos de emergencia. El alto número de intervenciones, los métodos divergentes utilizados para medir los resultados y las diferentes poblaciones complican su evaluación. Aunque aproximadamente dos tercios de los estudios primarios mostraron reducciones en el uso de ED en la mayoría de las intervenciones, la evidencia mostró resultados contradictorios. CONCLUSIÓN: A pesar de numerosas publicaciones, la evidencia sobre la efectividad de las intervenciones que intentan reducir el uso de ED sigue siendo insuficiente. Se necesitan estudios sobre grupos de pacientes más homogéneos con un grupo de intervención y control claramente descrito para determinar qué grupo objetivo específico qué tipo de intervención tiene más éxito y cómo debe diseñarse la intervención. El uso eficaz de los servicios de ED en general es un problema complejo y multifactorial que requiere intervenciones integradas que deberán ser adaptadas al contexto específico de un país con un sistema de retroalimentación para controlar sus consecuencias (no deseadas). Sin embargo, la co-localización de los puestos de GP y los departamentos de emergencia parece junto con la introducción de sistemas de triaje telefónico las intervenciones preferidas para reducir las visitas inapropiadas de ED, mientras que la gestión de casos podría reducir el número de asistencias ED por usuarios frecuentes de ED.
Síntesis amplia/ Revisión panorámica de revisiones sistemáticas
OBJECTIVE: To assess the available scientific evidence regarding the efficacy of interventions aimed to enhance medication adherence in patients with multiple chronic conditions (PMCC).
DESIGN: Overview of systematic reviews.
DATA SOURCES: The following databases were consulted (September 2013): Pubmed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CRD and WoS to identify interventions aimed to enhance medication adherence in PMCC, or otherwise, patients with chronic diseases common in the PMCC, or polypharmacy.
STUDY SELECTION: Systematic reviews of clinical trials focused on PMCC or similar were included. They should compare the efficacy of any intervention aimed to improve compliance to prescribed and self-administered medications with clinical practice or other interventions.
DATA EXTRACTION: Information about the study population, nature of intervention and efficacy in terms of improved adherence was extracted.
RESULTS: 566 articles were retrieved of which 9 systematic reviews were included. None was specifically focused on PMCC but considered patients with chronic diseases common in the PMCC, patients with more than one chronic disease and polypharmacy. The overall effectiveness of interventions was modest without relevant differences between behavioural, educational and combined interventions. Some components of these interventions including patient counselling and regimen simplification appear to be effective tools in improving adherence in this population group.
CONCLUSION: There is a large heterogeneity of interventions aimed to improve adherence with modest efficacy, none in PMCC.
Síntesis amplia/ Revisión panorámica de revisiones sistemáticas
ANTECEDENTES: Las personas con enfermedad mental grave (SMI) tienen altas tasas de enfermedades crónicas y muerte prematura.
Objetivos: explorar la solidez de las pruebas para las intervenciones para reducir el riesgo de mortalidad en las personas con enfermedad mental grave.
MÉTODO: En un meta-análisis de 16 revisiones sistemáticas de estudios controlados, la mortalidad fue el resultado primario (8 comentarios). medidas fisiológicas de la salud (índice de masa corporal, el peso, los niveles de glucosa, perfil de lípidos y presión arterial) fueron los resultados secundarios (14 opiniones).
RESULTADOS: Los medicamentos antipsicóticos y antidepresivos tenían un efecto protector sobre la mortalidad, sin perjuicio de la observancia del tratamiento. programas de atención comunitaria de integración puede reducir la morbilidad física y el exceso de muertes, pero los ingredientes eficaces son desconocidos. Las intervenciones para mejorar los estilos de vida poco saludables y comportamientos de riesgo puede mejorar el perfil de factores de riesgo, pero se necesita un seguimiento más prolongado. Las intervenciones preventivas y de mejora de la atención médica para las enfermedades crónicas comórbidas pueden reducir el exceso de mortalidad, pero se carece de datos.
Conclusiones: Mejora de la adherencia a las guías de gestión de la salud farmacológicas y físicas se indica.
ANTECEDENTES: Muchos países están desarrollando estrategias de prevención del suicidio para las cuales se requiere evidencia actualizada y de alta calidad. MÉTODOS: Se realizaron búsquedas en PubMed y en la Biblioteca Cochrane utilizando múltiples términos relacionados con la prevención del suicidio para los estudios publicados entre el 1 de enero de 2005 y el 31 de diciembre de 2014. Se evaluaron siete intervenciones: La educación pública y médica, las estrategias de los medios de comunicación, el cribado, la restricción del acceso a los medios de suicidio, los tratamientos y el apoyo por internet o por línea telefónica. Se extrajeron datos sobre los resultados primarios de interés, a saber, comportamiento suicida (suicidio, intento o ideación) y resultados intermedios o secundarios (búsqueda de tratamiento, identificación de individuos en riesgo, tasas de prescripción o uso de antidepresivos o referencias). 18 expertos en prevención de suicidios de 13 países europeos revisaron todos los artículos y evaluaron la fuerza de la evidencia utilizando los criterios de Oxford. Debido a que la heterogeneidad de las poblaciones y la metodología no permitieron metanálisis formal, presentamos un análisis narrativo. RESULTADOS: Se identificaron 1797 estudios, incluyendo 23 revisiones sistemáticas, 12 metaanálisis, 40 ensayos controlados aleatorios (ECA), 67 estudios de cohortes y 22 estudios ecológicos o basados en la población. La evidencia de restricción del acceso a medios letales en la prevención del suicidio se ha fortalecido desde 2005, especialmente en lo que se refiere al control de los analgésicos (disminución general del 43% desde 2005) y los puntos calientes de suicidio por salto (reducción del 86% A 91%). Se ha demostrado que los programas de concienciación en la escuela reducen los intentos de suicidio (odds ratio [OR] 0 · 45, IC del 95% 0 · 24-0 85], p = 0, 014) y la ideación suicida (0, 5, -0 · 92; p = 0 · 025). Los efectos anti-suicidas de la clozapina y el litio han sido probados, pero podrían ser menos específicos de lo que se pensaba anteriormente. Los tratamientos farmacológicos y psicológicos eficaces de la depresión son importantes en la prevención. No existen pruebas suficientes para evaluar los posibles beneficios de la prevención del suicidio en la atención primaria, en la educación general del público y en las directrices de los medios de comunicación. Otros enfoques que necesitan más investigación incluyen la formación de guardián, la educación de los médicos, y el apoyo de Internet y ayuda. La escasez de ECA es una limitación importante en la evaluación de las intervenciones preventivas. INTERPRETACIÓN: En la búsqueda de iniciativas eficaces de prevención del suicidio, ninguna estrategia única claramente está por encima de las demás. Las combinaciones de estrategias basadas en la evidencia a nivel individual y el nivel de población deben ser evaluadas con diseños de investigación sólidos. FINANCIACIÓN: Plataforma de Expertos en Salud Mental, Foco en la Depresión, y el Colegio Europeo de Neuropsicofarmacología.
[Correction Notice: An Erratum for this article was reported in Vol 71(2) of <i>Nordic Journal of Psychiatry</i> (see record [rid]2017-02956-013[/rid]). In the original article, there were some errors. On page 236, 2nd column, lines 5-6, regarding review question 8: the correct effect size for positive symptoms is 0.18 (95% CI 0.06-0.30) and for negative symptoms 0.13 (95% CI (-0.01)-0.27). Thus, the endorsement for CBT currently has to be limited to persisting positive symptoms. There were also errors in supplementary Table 8. The errors in supplementary Table 8 have been corrected in the online version.] Background and aim: The Danish Health and Medicines Authority assembled a group of experts to develop a national clinical guideline for patients with schizophrenia and complex mental health needs. Within this context, ten explicit review questions were formulated, covering several identified key issues. METHODS: Systematic literature searches were performed stepwise for each review question to identify relevant guidelines, systematic reviews/meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials. The quality of the body of evidence for each review question was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Clinical recommendations were developed on the basis of the evidence, assessment of the risk-benefit ratio, and perceived patient preferences. RESULTS: Based on the identified evidence, a guideline development group (GDG) recommended that the following interventions should be offered routinely: antipsychotic maintenance therapy, family intervention and assertive community treatment. The following interventions should be considered: long-acting injectable antipsychotics, neurocognitive training, social cognitive training, cognitive behavioural therapy for persistent positive and/or negative symptoms, and the combination of cognitive behavioural therapy and motivational interviewing for cannabis and/or central stimulant abuse. SSRI or SNRI add-on treatment for persistent negative symptoms should be used only cautiously. Where no evidence was available, the GDG agreed on a good practice recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of this guideline in daily clinical practice can facilitate good treatment outcomes within the population of patients with schizophrenia and complex mental health needs. The guideline does not cover all available interventions and should be used in conjunction with other relevant guidelines. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)
As a source of readily available evidence, rigorously synthesized and interpreted by expert clinicians and methodologists, clinical guidelines are part of an evidence-based practice toolkit, which, transformed into practice recommendations, have the potential to improve both the process of care and patient outcomes. In Brazil, the process of development and updating of the clinical guidelines for the Brazilian Unified Health System (Sistema Único de Saúde, SUS) is already well systematized by the Ministry of Health. However, the implementation process of those guidelines has not yet been discussed and well structured. Therefore, the first step of this project and the primary objective of this study was to summarize the evidence on the effectiveness of strategies used to promote clinical practice guideline implementation and dissemination.
METHODS:
This overview used systematic review methodology to locate and evaluate published systematic reviews regarding strategies for clinical practice guideline implementation and adhered to the PRISMA guidelines for systematic review (PRISMA).
RESULTS:
This overview identified 36 systematic reviews regarding 30 strategies targeting healthcare organizations, healthcare providers and patients to promote guideline implementation. The most reported interventions were educational materials, educational meetings, reminders, academic detailing and audit and feedback. Care pathways-single intervention, educational meeting-single intervention, organizational culture, and audit and feedback-both strategies implemented in combination with others-were strategies categorized as generally effective from the systematic reviews. In the meta-analyses, when used alone, organizational culture, educational intervention and reminders proved to be effective in promoting physicians' adherence to the guidelines. When used in conjunction with other strategies, organizational culture also proved to be effective. For patient-related outcomes, education intervention showed effective results for disease target results at a short and long term.
CONCLUSION:
This overview provides a broad summary of the best evidence on guideline implementation. Even if the included literature highlights the various limitations related to the lack of standardization, the methodological quality of the studies, and especially the lack of conclusion about the superiority of one strategy over another, the summary of the results provided by this study provides information on strategies that have been most widely studied in the last few years and their effectiveness in the context in which they were applied. Therefore, this panorama can support strategy decision-making adequate for SUS and other health systems, seeking to positively impact on the appropriate use of guidelines, healthcare outcomes and the sustainability of the SUS.
Síntesis amplia»Revisión panorámica de revisiones sistemáticas
