The views of health care professionals about selective decontamination of the digestive tract: an international, theoretically informed interview study.

PURPOSE: Selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) as a prophylactic intervention improves hospital-acquired infection and survival rates. Uptake of SDD is low and remains controversial. This study applied the theoretical domains framework to assess intensive care unit clinicians' views about SDD in regions with limited or no adoption of SDD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants were health professionals with "decisional authority" for the adoption of SDD. Semistructured interviews were conducted as the first round of a Delphi study. Views about SDD adoption, delivery, and further SDD research were explored. Directed content analysis of interview data identified subthemes, which informed item development for subsequent Delphi rounds. Linguistic features of interview data were also explored. RESULTS: One hundred forty-one participants provided interview data. Fifty-six subthemes were identified; 46 were common across regions. Beliefs about consequences were the most widely elaborated theme. Linguistic features of how participants discussed SDD included caution expressed when discussing the risks and benefits and words such as "worry," "anxiety," and "fear" when discussing potential antibiotic resistance associated with SDD. CONCLUSIONS: We identified salient beliefs, barriers, and facilitators to SDD adoption and delivery. What participants said about SDD and the way in which they said it demonstrated the degree of clinical caution, uncertainty, and concern that SDD evokes.

Comparison of four methods for assessing the importance of attitudinal beliefs: an international Delphi study in intensive care settings.

OBJECTIVES: Behaviour change interventions often target 'important' beliefs. The literature proposes four methods for assessing importance of attitudinal beliefs: elicitation frequency, importance ratings, and strength of prediction (bivariate and multivariate). We tested congruence between these methods in a Delphi study about selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD). SDD improves infection rates among critically ill patients, yet uptake in intensive care units is low internationally. METHODS: A Delphi study involved three iterations ('rounds'). Participants were 105 intensive care clinicians in the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia/New Zealand. In Round 1, semi-structured interviews were conducted to elicit beliefs about delivering SDD. In Rounds 2 and 3, participants completed questionnaires, rating agreement and importance for each belief-statement (9-point Likert scales). Belief importance was assessed using elicitation frequency, mean importance ratings, and prediction of global attitude (Pearson's correlations; beta-weights). Correlations between indices were computed. RESULTS: Participants generated 14 attitudinal beliefs. Indices had adequate variation (frequencies: 4-94, mean importance ratings: 4.93-8.00, Pearson's correlations: ± 0.09 to ± 0.54, beta-weights: ± 0.01 to ± 0.30). SDD increases antibiotic resistance was the most important belief according to three methods and was ranked second by beta-weights (behind Overall, SDD benefits patients to whom it is delivered). Spearman's correlations were significant for importance ratings with frequencies and correlations. However, other indices were unrelated. The top four beliefs differed according to the measure used. CONCLUSIONS: Results provided evidence of congruence across three methods for assessing belief importance. Beta-weights were unrelated to other indices, suggesting that they may not be appropriate as the sole method. STATEMENT OF CONTRIBUTION: What is already known on this subject? Attitudinal beliefs (specific beliefs about the consequences of performing an action) are key to designing interventions to change intentions and behaviour. The literature reports four methods for assessing the importance of attitudinal beliefs: frequency of elicitation in interviews, importance ratings in questionnaires, and strength of prediction (bivariate and multivariate) of global attitude scores. The congruence between these measures of importance is not known. What does this study add? Four indices of importance were examined in a multi-professional, international study about the use of selective digestive decontamination to prevent infection in intensive care settings. Three indices were correlated with one another. Each method used to assess importance produced a different subset of the most important beliefs. Selection of the most important beliefs should use multiple assessment methods. This evidence suggests that multiple regression approaches may not be appropriate as the sole method for assessing belief importance.

Clinical stakeholders' opinions on the use of selective decontamination of the digestive tract in critically ill patients in intensive care units: an international Delphi study.

INTRODUCTION: Selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) is a prophylactic antibiotic regimen that is not widely used in practice. We aimed to describe the opinions of key 'stakeholders' about the validity of the existing evidence base, likely consequences of implementation, relative importance of their opinions in influencing overall practice, likely barriers to implementation and perceptions of the requirement for further research to inform the decision about whether to embark on a further large randomised controlled trial. METHODS: This was a Delphi study informed by comprehensive framework of possible determinants of health professionals' behaviour to study Critical Care practice in four countries. There were four key stakeholder participant groups including ICU physicians, pharmacists, clinical leads, and clinical microbiologists/ infectious disease physicians. Round one comprised participant interviews and Rounds two and three were online questionnaires using Delphi method. RESULTS: In this study, 141 participants were recruited of whom 82% were retained. Participants rated themselves as knowledgeable about SDD. Antibiotic resistance was identified as the most important issue. SDD was seen as a low clinical priority but few participants reported strong opposition. There was moderate agreement that research to date has not adequately addressed concerns about antibiotic resistance and lacks generalizability. Participants indicated equipoise with regard to benefits and harms of SDD, and indicated strong support for a further randomised trial. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians have clinical equipoise about the effectiveness of SDD. Future research requires longer follow up to assess antibiotic resistance as well as greater validity/generalizability to provide definitive answers on the effectiveness of decontamination and effects on antibiotic resistance. SDD was regarded as not being a high clinical priority, which may limit future trial participation. These results have identified that further large randomised controlled trial of SDD in critical care is both warranted and appropriate.