A systematic review of implementation strategies to deliver guidelines on obstetric care practice in low- and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare measures to prevent maternal deaths are well known. However, effective implementation of this knowledge to change practice remains a challenge. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether strategies to promote the use of guidelines can improve obstetric practices in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic databases were searched up to February 7, 2014, using relevant terms for implementation strategies (e.g. "audit," "education," "reminder"), and maternal mortality. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized and non-randomized studies of implementation strategies targeting healthcare professionals within the formal health services in LMICs were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Cochrane methodological guidance was followed. Because of heterogeneity in the interventions, a narrative synthesis was completed. MAIN RESULTS: Nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Moderate-to-low-quality evidence was found to show improvement in the areas of doctor-patient communication (one study), analgesic provision (one study), the management of emergencies (two studies) and maternal and late neonatal mortality (one study each). Intervention effects were not consistent across studies. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation strategies targeting health professionals could lead to improvement in obstetric care in LMICs. Future research should explore what feature of an intervention is effective in one context and how this could be translated into another context. PROSPERO: CRD42014010310.

Barriers and enablers to guideline implementation strategies to improve obstetric care practice in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review of qualitative evidence.

BACKGROUND: Maternal mortality remains a major international health problem in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), and most could have been prevented by quality improvement interventions already demonstrated to be effective, such as clinical guideline implementation strategies. The aim of this systematic review was to synthesise qualitative evidence on guideline implementation strategies to improve obstetric care practice in LMIC in order to identify barriers and enablers to their successful implementation. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and CINAHL databases for articles reporting research findings on barriers and enablers to guideline implementation strategies in obstetric care practice in LMIC. We conducted a "best fit" framework synthesis of the included studies. We used an organisational "stages of change" model as our a priori framework for the synthesis. RESULTS: Nine studies were included: all were based in Sub-Saharan Africa and in hospital health care facilities. The majority of studies (seven) evaluated one particular guideline implementation strategy: clinical audit and feedback (both criterion-based audit and maternal death reviews), and a minority (two) evaluated educational interventions. A range of barriers and enablers to successful guideline implementation was identified. A key finding of the framework synthesis was that "high" and "low" intrinsic health care professional motivation are overall enablers and barriers, respectively, of successful guideline implementation. We developed a modified "stages of change" model to take account of these findings. CONCLUSION: We have identified a number of quality improvement processes that are amenable to change at limited or no additional cost, although some identified barriers may be difficult to address without increased resources. We note the pathways to implementation may be complex and require further research to develop our understanding of individual and organisational behaviours and motivation in LMIC settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42015016062.

Tailored interventions to address determinants of practice.

BACKGROUND: Tailored intervention strategies are frequently recommended among approaches to the implementation of improvement in health professional performance. Attempts to change the behaviour of health professionals may be impeded by a variety of different barriers, obstacles, or factors (which we collectively refer to as determinants of practice). Change may be more likely if implementation strategies are specifically chosen to address these determinants. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether tailored intervention strategies are effective in improving professional practice and healthcare outcomes. We compared interventions tailored to address the identified determinants of practice with either no intervention or interventions not tailored to the determinants. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted searches of The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, CINAHL, and the British Nursing Index to May 2014. We conducted a final search in December 2014 (in MEDLINE only) for more recently published trials. We conducted searches of the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) in March 2013. We also handsearched two journals. SELECTION CRITERIA: Cluster-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions tailored to address prospectively identified determinants of practice, which reported objectively measured professional practice or healthcare outcomes, and where at least one group received an intervention designed to address prospectively identified determinants of practice. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed quality and extracted data. We undertook qualitative and quantitative analyses, the quantitative analysis including two elements: we carried out 1) meta-regression analyses to compare interventions tailored to address identified determinants with either no interventions or an intervention(s) not tailored to the determinants, and 2) heterogeneity analyses to investigate sources of differences in the effectiveness of interventions. These included the effects of: risk of bias, use of a theory when developing the intervention, whether adjustment was made for local factors, and number of domains addressed with the determinants identified. MAIN RESULTS: We added nine studies to this review to bring the total number of included studies to 32 comparing an intervention tailored to address identified determinants of practice to no intervention or an intervention(s) not tailored to the determinants. The outcome was implementation of recommended practice, e.g. clinical practice guideline recommendations. Fifteen studies provided enough data to be included in the quantitative analysis. The pooled odds ratio was 1.56 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27 to 1.93, P value < 0.001). The 17 studies not included in the meta-analysis had findings showing variable effectiveness consistent with the findings of the meta-regression. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite the increase in the number of new studies identified, our overall finding is similar to that of the previous review. Tailored implementation can be effective, but the effect is variable and tends to be small to moderate. The number of studies remains small and more research is needed, including trials comparing tailored interventions to no or other interventions, but also studies to develop and investigate the components of tailoring (identification of the most important determinants, selecting interventions to address the determinants). Currently available studies have used different methods to identify determinants of practice and different approaches to selecting interventions to address the determinants. It is not yet clear how best to tailor interventions and therefore not clear what the effect of an optimally tailored intervention would be.

The use of personal digital assistants in clinical decision making by health care professionals: a systematic review.

Ownership of personal digital assistants (PDAs) and smartphones by health professionals is increasingly common. Providing the best available evidence at the point of care is important for time-poor clinical staff and may lead to benefits in the processes and outcomes of clinical care. This review was performed to investigate the usefulness of PDAs in the clinical setting. MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from 2000 to March 2010. Randomised controlled trials that evaluated the effects on the processes or outcomes of clinical care of using PDAs compared with not using a PDA were included. Two reviewers independently reviewed citations and abstracts, assessed full text articles and abstracted data from the studies. Seven trials met the review inclusion criteria, of which only three were of satisfactory quality. Studies investigated the use of PDAs either in recording patient information or in decision support for diagnoses or treatment. An increase in data collection quality was reported, and the appropriateness of diagnosis and treatment decisions was improved. PDAs appear to have potential in improving some processes and outcomes of clinical care, but the evidence is limited and reliable conclusions on whether they help, in what circumstances and how they should be used are not possible. Further research is required to assess their value and ensure full benefits from their widespread use, but the pace of technological development creates problems for the timely evaluation of these devices and their applications.

WITHDRAWN: Self-management education for adults with epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: Self-management education has been shown to improve the quality of life of people with chronic illnesses. It has been suggested that self-management education may improve seizure control and other outcomes in people with epilepsy. OBJECTIVES: To review systematically the research literature on the effectiveness of self-management education in improving health outcomes for adults with epilepsy. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE (Ovid) (1966 to April 2005), EMBASE (Ovid) (1980 to April 2005), CINAHL (Dialog) (1980 to April 2005), PsycINFO (Dialog) (1887 to April 2005), and the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialised Register (April 2005). We also handsearched Epilepsia and conference abstracts and proceedings. Experts in the field were contacted to identify any additional trials. We did not impose any language restriction. We re-ran the searches in February 2007 and added the identified references to the 'Studies awaiting assessment' table. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials of self-management education programmes for adults with epilepsy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently assessed the quality of each study and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: Two trials evaluated the effect of self-management education for adults with epilepsy, neither of which assessed as being of high quality. In total, 483 adults with epilepsy were randomised. Both trials showed improvements in seizure frequency and other outcomes, such as knowledge. However, we were not able to estimate a summary effect for seizure frequency due to a lack of data. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Self-management education programmes, based on increasing understanding through psychosocial methods, may improve knowledge about epilepsy, certain behavioural outcomes, and reduce seizure frequency. It is, however, not clear how effective self-management programmes of epilepsy would be in a more general population of adults with epilepsy, as both trials had higher proportions of people with partial seizures than would be expected in a community sample.

WITHDRAWN: Self-management education for children with epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: Self-management education has been shown to improve the quality of life of children and young people with chronic illnesses. It has been suggested that self-management education may improve seizure control and other outcomes in children and young people with epilepsy. OBJECTIVES: To review systematically the research literature on the effectiveness of self-management education in improving health outcomes for children and young people with epilepsy. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialised Register (February 2007), MEDLINE (Ovid) (1966 to February 2007), EMBASE (Ovid) (1980 to February 2007), CINAHL (Dialog) (1980 to February 2007), and PsycINFO (Dialog) (1887 to February 2007). We also handsearched Epilepsia and conference abstracts and proceedings. Experts in the field were contacted to identify any additional trials. No language restriction was imposed. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials of self-management education programmes for children or young people with epilepsy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently assessed the quality of each study and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: Only one trial involving 167 children was identified that evaluated the effect of a child-centred model of training for the self-management of two chronic illnesses, asthma and epilepsy. The trial was not assessed as being of high quality and the methods used to analyse and report the data did not enable us to precisely determine the effect of the intervention. However, improvements were seen in seizure frequency and other outcomes, such as knowledge and behaviour. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Self-management education programmes that deliver a child-centred model of training, may improve knowledge about epilepsy, certain behavioural outcomes, and reduce seizure frequency in children and young people with epilepsy. However, based on the evidence reviewed, we are not able to determine how effective it is, or what the key components of the programme should be.

Tailored interventions to overcome identified barriers to change: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes.

BACKGROUND: In the previous version of this review, the effectiveness of interventions tailored to barriers to change was found to be uncertain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of interventions tailored to address identified barriers to change on professional practice or patient outcomes. SEARCH STRATEGY: For this update, in addition to the EPOC Register and pending files, we searched the following databases without language restrictions, from inception until August 2007: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, BNI and HMIC. We searched the National Research Register to November 2007. We undertook further searches to October 2009 to identify potentially eligible published or ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions tailored to address prospectively identified barriers to change that reported objectively measured professional practice or healthcare outcomes in which at least one group received an intervention designed to address prospectively identified barriers to change. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed quality and extracted data. We undertook quantitative and qualitative analyses. The quantitative analyses had two elements.1. We carried out a meta-regression to compare interventions tailored to address identified barriers to change with either no interventions or an intervention(s) not tailored to the barriers.2. We carried out heterogeneity analyses to investigate sources of differences in the effectiveness of interventions. These included the effects of: risk of bias, concealment of allocation, rigour of barrier analysis, use of theory, complexity of interventions, and the reported presence of administrative constraints. MAIN RESULTS: We included 26 studies comparing an intervention tailored to address identified barriers to change to no intervention or an intervention(s) not tailored to the barriers. The effect sizes of these studies varied both across and within studies.Twelve studies provided enough data to be included in the quantitative analysis. A meta-regression model was fitted adjusting for baseline odds by fitting it as a covariate, to obtain the pooled odds ratio of 1.54 (95% CI, 1.16 to 2.01) from Bayesian analysis and 1.52 (95% CI, 1.27 to 1.82, P < 0.001) from classical analysis. The heterogeneity analyses found that no study attributes investigated were significantly associated with effectiveness of the interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Interventions tailored to prospectively identified barriers are more likely to improve professional practice than no intervention or dissemination of guidelines. However, the methods used to identify barriers and tailor interventions to address them need further development. Research is required to determine the effectiveness of tailored interventions in comparison with other interventions.

Men's and carers' experiences of care for prostate cancer: a narrative literature review.

OBJECTIVE: To review studies of patients' and carers' experience of prostate cancer care. DESIGN: Narrative literature review. METHODS: Search strategies were developed for the following databases: MEDLINE (1966-2006), EMBASE (1980-2006), CINAHL (1982-2006) and PsycINFO (1987-2006). A search of SIGLE (System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe) was also undertaken. Experience was defined as patients' and carers' reports of how care was organized and delivered to meet their needs. A narrative summary of the included papers was undertaken. RESULTS: A total of 90 relevant studies were identified. Most studies reported on experiences of screening, diagnosis, the treatment decision, treatment and post-initial treatment. Few studies reported on experiences of the stages of referral, testing, and further treatment and palliative care, and no studies reported on monitoring or terminal care. CONCLUSIONS: Although some phases of care have not been investigated in detail, there is evidence that: (i) many patients have a low level of knowledge of prostate cancer; (ii) patients with prostate cancer and their carers need information throughout the care pathway to enable them to understand the diagnosis, treatment options, self-care and support available; and (iii) increasing patient knowledge and understanding of prostate cancer (e.g. through interventions) are often associated with a more active role in decision making (e.g. screening, treatment decision).

Making use of mortality data to improve quality and safety in general practice: a review of current approaches.

OBJECTIVE: To review studies of the use of mortality data in quality and safety improvement in general practice. DESIGN: Narrative review. METHODS: Search of Medline, Embase and CINAHL for articles reporting mortality monitoring or mortality reviews in general practice. The included articles were reported in English and of any study design, excluding case reports and comment pieces. Studies of palliative care and bereavement, and of primary care programmes in developing countries, were excluded. RESULTS: 229 articles were identified in the searches, 65 were identified as potentially relevant and 53 were included in the review. The studies addressed the impact of primary care provision on mortality rates, methods of monitoring mortality, and the role of audit and death registers in quality and safety improvement. General practitioners were interested in using mortality data but reported difficulties in obtaining complete information. There were no experimental studies of the impact of the use of mortality data, and little evidence of long-term systematic initiatives to use mortality data in quality and safety improvement in general practice. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality data are not used systematically in general practice although general practitioners appear interested in the potential of this information in improving quality and safety. Improved systems to provide complete data are needed and experimental studies required to determine the effectiveness of use of the data to improve general practice care.

The costs of epilepsy misdiagnosis in England and Wales.

BACKGROUND: The management of epilepsy incurs significant costs to the United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service (NHS). Making a diagnosis of epilepsy can, however, be difficult and misdiagnosis frequently occurs when patients are seen by non-specialists. This study estimates the financial costs of epilepsy misdiagnosis in the NHS in England and Wales. METHODS: Standard costing methods were applied to estimate the costs attributable to epilepsy misdiagnosis. The primary data were published in UK studies on the prevalence of epilepsy, epilepsy misdiagnosis and costs identified from Medline, Cinahl and Embase (1996-May 2006). RESULTS: An estimated total of 92,000 people were misdiagnosed with epilepsy in England and Wales in 2002. The average medical cost per patient per year of misdiagnosis was 316 pounds sterling, with the chief economic burdens being inpatient admissions (45%), inappropriate prescribing of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) (26%), outpatient attendances (16%) and general practitioner (GP) care (8%). The estimated annual medical costs in England and Wales were 29,000,000 pounds sterling, while total costs could reach up to 138,000,000 pounds sterling a year. CONCLUSIONS: Allowing for uncertainty, and considering the analysis exclusively from the NHS/CBS (community based services) perspective the opportunity costs of misdiagnosis are substantial. There is a need for health care commissioners to ensure that misdiagnosis is kept to a minimum by ensuring that individuals with a recent onset suspected seizure are seen as soon as possible by a specialist medical practitioner with training and expertise in epilepsy.

How to identify randomized controlled trials in MEDLINE: ten years on.

OBJECTIVE: The researchers sought to assess whether the widely used 1994 Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy (HSSS) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in MEDLINE could be improved in terms of sensitivity, precision, or parsimony. METHODS: A gold standard of 1,347 RCT records and a comparison group of 2,400 non-trials were randomly selected from MEDLINE. Terms occurring in at least 1% of RCT records were identified. Fifty percent of the RCT and comparison group records were randomly selected, and the ability of the terms to discriminate RCTs from non-trial records was determined using logistic regression. The best performing combinations of terms were tested on the remaining records and in MEDLINE. RESULTS: The best discriminating term was "Clinical Trial" (Publication Type). In years where the Cochrane assessment of MEDLINE records had taken place, the strategies identified few additional unindexed records of trials. In years where Cochrane assessment has yet to take place, "Randomized Controlled Trial" (Publication Type) proved highly sensitive and precise. Adding six more search terms identified further, unindexed trials at reasonable levels of precision and with sensitivity almost equal to the Cochrane HSSS. CONCLUSIONS: Most reports of RCTs in MEDLINE can now be identified easily using "Randomized Controlled Trial" (Publication Type). More sensitive searches can be achieved by a brief strategy, the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination/Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy (2005 revision).