Barriers to the uptake of evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a systematic review of decision makers' perceptions

The role of organizational context in moderating the effect of research use on pain outcomes in hospitalized children: a cross sectional study

Background

Despite substantial research on pediatric pain assessment and management, health care professionals do not adequately incorporate this knowledge into clinical practice. Organizational context (work environment) is a significant factor in influencing outcomes; however, the nature of the mechanisms are relatively unknown. The objective of this study was to assess how organizational context moderates the effect of research use and pain outcomes in hospitalized children.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey was undertaken with 779 nurses in 32 patient care units in 8 Canadian pediatric hospitals, following implementation of a multifaceted knowledge translation intervention, Evidence-based Practice for Improving Quality (EPIQ). The influence of organizational context was assessed in relation to pain process (assessment and management) and clinical (pain intensity) outcomes. Organizational context was measured using the Alberta Context Tool that includes: leadership, culture, evaluation, social capital, informal interactions, formal interactions, structural and electronic resources, and organizational slack (staff, space, and time). Marginal modeling estimated the effects of instrumental research use (direct use of research knowledge) and conceptual research use (indirect use of research knowledge) on pain outcomes while examining the effects of context.

Results

Six of the 10 organizational context factors (culture, social capital, informal interactions, resources, and organizational slack [space and time]) significantly moderated the effect of instrumental research use on pain assessment; four factors (culture, social capital, resources and organizational slack time) moderated the effect of conceptual research use and pain assessment. Only two factors (evaluation and formal interactions) moderated the effect of instrumental research use on pain management. All organizational factors except slack space significantly moderated the effect of instrumental research use on pain intensity; informal interactions and organizational slack space moderated the effect of conceptual research use and pain intensity.

Conclusions

Many aspects of organizational context consistently moderated the effects of instrumental research use on pain assessment and pain intensity, while only a few influenced conceptual use of research on pain outcomes. Organizational context factors did not generally influence the effect of research use on pain management. Further research is required to further explore the relationships between organizational context and pain management outcomes.

Development and validation of SEER (Seeking, Engaging with and Evaluating Research): a measure of policymakers' capacity to engage with and use research

Background

Capacity building strategies are widely used to increase the use of research in policy development. However, a lack of well-validated measures for policy contexts has hampered efforts to identify priorities for capacity building and to evaluate the impact of strategies. We aimed to address this gap by developing SEER (Seeking, Engaging with and Evaluating Research), a self-report measure of individual policymakers’ capacity to engage with and use research.

Methods

We used the SPIRIT Action Framework to identify pertinent domains and guide development of items for measuring each domain. Scales covered (1) individual capacity to use research (confidence in using research, value placed on research, individual perceptions of the value their organisation places on research, supporting tools and systems), (2) actions taken to engage with research and researchers, and (3) use of research to inform policy (extent and type of research use). A sample of policymakers engaged in health policy development provided data to examine scale reliability (internal consistency, test-retest) and validity (relation to measures of similar concepts, relation to a measure of intention to use research, internal structure of the individual capacity scales).

Results

Response rates were 55% (150/272 people, 12 agencies) for the validity and internal consistency analyses, and 54% (57/105 people, 9 agencies) for test-retest reliability. The individual capacity scales demonstrated adequate internal consistency reliability (alpha coefficients > 0.7, all four scales) and test-retest reliability (intra-class correlation coefficients > 0.7 for three scales and 0.59 for fourth scale). Scores on individual capacity scales converged as predicted with measures of similar concepts (moderate correlations of > 0.4), and confirmatory factor analysis provided evidence that the scales measured related but distinct concepts. Items in each of these four scales related as predicted to concepts in the measurement model derived from the SPIRIT Action Framework. Evidence about the reliability and validity of the research engagement actions and research use scales was equivocal.

Conclusions

Initial testing of SEER suggests that the four individual capacity scales may be used in policy settings to examine current capacity and identify areas for capacity building. The relation between capacity, research engagement actions and research use requires further investigation.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12961-016-0162-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of orthodontic mini implants in clinical practice: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Numerous surveys have shown that orthodontic mini implants (OMIs) are underused in clinical practice. To investigate this implementation issue, we conducted a systematic review to (1) identify barriers and facilitators to the implementation of OMIs for all potential stakeholders and (2) quantify these implementation constructs, i.e., record their prevalence. We also recorded the prevalence of clinicians in the eligible studies that do not use OMIs.

METHODS

Methods were based on our published protocol. Broad-spectrum eligibility criteria were defined. A barrier was defined as any variable that impedes or obstructs the use of OMIs and a facilitator as any variable that eases and promotes their use. Over 30 databases including gray literature were searched until 15 January 2016. The Joanna Briggs Institute tool for studies reporting prevalence and incidence data was used to critically appraise the included studies. Outcomes were qualitatively synthesized, and meta-analyses were only conducted when pre-set criteria were fulfilled. Three reviewers conducted all research procedures independently. We also contacted authors of eligible studies to obtain additional information.

RESULTS

Three surveys fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Seventeen implementation constructs were identified in these studies and were extracted from a total of 165 patients and 1391 clinicians. Eight of the 17 constructs were scored by more than 50 % of the pertinent stakeholders. Three of these constructs overlapped between studies. Contacting of authors clarified various uncertainties but was not always successful. Limitations of the eligible studies included (1) the small number of studies; (2) not defining the research questions, i.e., the primary outcomes; (3) the research design (surveys) of the studies and the exclusive use of closed-ended questions; (4) not consulting standards for identifying implementation constructs; (5) the lack of pilot testing; (6) high heterogeneity; (7) the risk of reporting bias; and (8) additional shortcomings. Meta-analyses were not possible because of these limitations. Two eligible studies found that respectively 56.3 % (952/1691) and 40.16 % (439/1093) of clinicians do not use OMIs.

CONCLUSIONS

Notwithstanding the limitations of the eligible studies, their findings were important because (1) 17 implementation constructs were identified of which 8 were scored by more than 50 % of the stakeholders; (2) the various shortcomings showed how to improve on future implementation studies; and (3) the underuse of OMIs in the selected studies and in the literature demonstrated the need to identify, quantify, and address implementation constructs. Prioritizing of future research questions on OMIs with all pertinent stakeholders is an important first step and could redirect research studies on OMIs towards implementation issues. Patients, clinicians, researchers, policymakers, insurance companies, implant companies, and research sponsors will all be beneficiaries.

Series: Clinical Epidemiology in South Africa. Paper 1: Evidence-based health care and policy in Africa: past, present, and future

Africa has high disease burden and health system challenges but is making progress in recognizing, accepting, and adopting evidence-based health care (EBHC). In this article, we reflect on the developments of the past 2 decades and consider further steps that will help with the translation of reliable research results into the decision making process. There has been a rapid growth in various initiatives to promote EBHC in the African region. These include the conduct and reporting of primary and secondary research, research capacity development and supportive initiatives, access to information, and work with decision makers in getting research into clinical guidelines and health policies. Much, however, still needs to be done to improve the impact on health in the region. A multipronged approach consisting of regionally relevant well-conducted research addressing priority health problems, increased uptake of research in health care policy and practice, dedicated capacity development initiatives to support the conduct as well as use of research, facilitated by wider collaboration, and equitable partnerships will be important. Working together in mutually supporting partnerships is key to advancing both evidence-informed health care practices and better health.

Impact of an electronic tool in prescribing primary prophylaxis with ciprofloxacin or granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for breast cancer patients receiving TC chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

The US Oncology Trial 9735 (doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) versus docetaxel and cyclophosphamide (TC)) reported febrile neutropenia (FN) in 5 % of patients receiving TC chemotherapy, in the absence of routine primary prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) or antibiotics. In contrast, higher rates of FN have been reported in the 'real world' setting. This retrospective study compares the incidence and severity of FN and other TC-related toxicities before and after implementation of a primary prophylaxis computerized prescribing tool.

METHODS

Medical records of 207 patients receiving adjuvant TC between May 1, 2006, and November 1, 2011, were reviewed for toxicity. The incidence for each TC adverse event was measured by an incident rate ratio (IRR), and chi-square analysis was used to compare the differences in severity of TC toxicities before and after use of a primary prophylaxis computerized prescribing tool, and to compare G-CSF and ciprofloxacin groups.

RESULTS

The implementation of a computerized prescribing tool significantly increased the proportion of patients prescribed primary prophylaxis (18.2 vs. 97.4 %; p < 0.001). Prior to the change in practice, the incidence of FN (incidence rate ratio 3.87; 95 % CI [1.3, 11.5]) and neutropenia (OR 4.8; 95 % CI [2.0, 11.7]) was significantly higher. Primary prophylaxis significantly reduced the rate of febrile neutropenia (20 vs. 5.3 %, p = 0.003). No significant differences were found in incidence and severity of other TC-related toxicities. Patients who did not receive G-CSF were at a greater risk for neutropenia (OR 5.1, 95 % CI [1.06, 24.3]). There were insufficient patients treated with antibiotics alone to compare to those treated with G-CSF.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of a computerized prescribing tool significantly increased the use of primary prophylaxis by treating physicians in patients receiving TC chemotherapy, which was associated with reduced incidence of febrile neutropenia. Further research efforts should focus on the incorporation and routine use of evidence-based practices using tools such as alerts and prompts, in order to optimize patient care and improve outcomes.

Do Cochrane summaries help student midwives understand the findings of Cochrane systematic reviews: the BRIEF randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Abstracts and plain language summaries (PLS) are often the first, and sometimes the only, point of contact between readers and systematic reviews. It is important to identify how these summaries are used and to know the impact of different elements, including the authors' conclusions. The trial aims to assess whether (a) the abstract or the PLS of a Cochrane Review is a better aid for midwifery students in assessing the evidence, (b) inclusion of authors' conclusions helps them and (c) there is an interaction between the type of summary and the presence or absence of the conclusions.

METHODS

Eight hundred thirteen midwifery students from nine universities in the UK and Ireland were recruited to this 2 × 2 factorial trial (abstract versus PLS, conclusions versus no conclusions). They were randomly allocated to one of four groups and asked to recall knowledge after reading one of four summary formats of two Cochrane Reviews, one with clear findings and one with uncertain findings. The primary outcome was the proportion of students who identified the appropriate statement to describe the main findings of the two reviews as assessed by an expert panel.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference in correct response between the abstract and PLS groups in the clear finding example (abstract, 59.6 %; PLS, 64.2 %; risk difference 4.6 %; CI -0.2 to 11.3) or the uncertain finding example (42.7 %, 39.3 %, -3.4 %, -10.1 to 3.4). There was no significant difference between the conclusion and no conclusion groups in the example with clear findings (conclusions, 63.3 %; no conclusions, 60.5 %; 2.8 %; -3.9 to 9.5), but there was a significant difference in the example with uncertain findings (44.7 %; 37.3 %; 7.3 %; 0.6 to 14.1, p = 0.03). PLS without conclusions in the uncertain finding review had the lowest proportion of correct responses (32.5 %). Prior knowledge and belief predicted student response to the clear finding review, while years of midwifery education predicted response to the uncertain finding review.

CONCLUSIONS

Abstracts with and without conclusions generated similar student responses. PLS with conclusions gave similar results to abstracts with and without conclusions. Removing the conclusions from a PLS with uncertain findings led to more problems with interpretation.

Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of orthodontic mini-implants in clinical practice: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Most orthodontic treatment plans need some form of anchorage to control the reciprocal forces of tooth movement. Orthodontic mini implants (OMIs) have been hailed for having revolutionized orthodontics, because they provide anchorage without depending on the collaboration of patients, they have a favorable effectiveness compared with conventional anchorage devices, and they can be used for a wide scale of treatment objectives. However, surveys have shown that many orthodontists never or rarely use them. To understand the rationale behind this knowledge-to-action gap, we will conduct a systematic review that will identify and quantify potential barriers and facilitators to the implementation of OMIs in clinical practice for all potential stakeholders, i.e., patients, family members, clinicians, office staff, clinic owners, policy makers, etc. The prevalence of clinicians that do not use OMIs will be our secondary outcome.

METHODS

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 Statement was adopted as the framework for reporting this manuscript. We will apply broad-spectrum search strategies and will search MEDLINE and more than 40 other databases. We will conduct searches in the gray literature, screen reference lists, and hand-search 12 journals. All study designs, stakeholders, interventions, settings, and languages will be eligible. We will search studies that report on barriers or facilitators to the implementation of orthodontic mini implants (OMIs) in clinical practice. Implementation constructs and their prevalence among pertinent stakeholders will be our primary outcomes. All searching and data extraction procedures will be conducted by three experienced reviewers. We will also contact authors and investigators to obtain additional information on data items and unidentified studies. Risk of bias will be scored with tools designed for the specific study designs. We will assess heterogeneity, meta-biases, and the robustness of the overall evidence of outcomes. We will present findings in a systematic narrative synthesis and plan meta-analyses when pertinent criteria are met.

DISCUSSION

Knowledge creation on this research topic could identify and quantify both expected and unexpected implementation constructs and their stakeholders. Such knowledge can help develop strategies to address implementation issues and redirect future studies on OMIs towards knowledge translation. This could lead to improved patient-health experiences and a reduction in research waste.

Barriers and facilitators to uptake of systematic reviews by policy makers and health care managers: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

We completed a scoping review on the barriers and facilitators to use of systematic reviews by health care managers and policy makers, including consideration of format and content, to develop recommendations for systematic review authors and to inform research efforts to develop and test formats for systematic reviews that may optimise their uptake.

METHODS

We used the Arksey and O'Malley approach for our scoping review. Electronic databases (e.g., MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo) were searched from inception until September 2014. Any study that identified barriers or facilitators (including format and content features) to uptake of systematic reviews by health care managers and policy makers/analysts was eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently screened the literature results and abstracted data from the relevant studies. The identified barriers and facilitators were charted using a barriers and facilitators taxonomy for implementing clinical practice guidelines by clinicians.

RESULTS

We identified useful information for authors of systematic reviews to inform their preparation of reviews including providing one-page summaries with key messages, tailored to the relevant audience. Moreover, partnerships between researchers and policy makers/managers to facilitate the conduct and use of systematic reviews should be considered to enhance relevance of reviews and thereby influence uptake.

CONCLUSIONS

Systematic review authors can consider our results when publishing their systematic reviews. These strategies should be rigorously evaluated to determine impact on use of reviews in decision-making.

Dissemination of Evidence From Systematic Reviews Through Academic CME Providers: A Feasibility Study

INTRODUCTION

Although systematic reviews represent a source of best evidence to support clinical decision-making, reviews are underutilized by clinicians. Barriers include lack of awareness, familiarity, and access. Efforts to promote utilization have focused on reaching practicing clinicians, leaving unexplored the roles of continuing medical education (CME) directors and faculty in promoting systematic review use. This study explored the feasibility of working with CME directors and faculty for that purpose.

METHODS

A convenience sample of five academic CME directors and faculty agreed to participate in a feasibility study exploring use in CME courses of systematic reviews from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ-SRs). AHRQ-SR topics addressed the comparative effectiveness of health care options. Participants received access to AHRQ-SR reports, associated summary products, and instructional resources. The feasibility study used mixed methods to assess 1) implementation of courses incorporating SR evidence, 2) identification of facilitators and barriers to integration, and 3) acceptability to CME directors, faculty, and learners.

RESULTS

Faculty implemented 14 CME courses of varying formats serving 1700 learners in urban, suburban, and rural settings. Facilitators included credibility, conciseness of messages, and availability of supporting materials; potential barriers included faculty unfamiliarity with SRs, challenges in maintaining review currency, and review scope. SR evidence and summary products proved acceptable to CME directors, course faculty, and learners by multiple measures.

DISCUSSION

This study demonstrates the feasibility of approaches to use AHRQ-SRs in CME courses/programming. Further research is needed to demonstrate generalizability to other types of CME providers and other systemic reviews.

What's in a name? The challenge of describing interventions in systematic reviews: analysis of a random sample of reviews of non-pharmacological stroke interventions

OBJECTIVE

To assess, in a sample of systematic reviews of non-pharmacological interventions, the completeness of intervention reporting, identify the most frequently missing elements, and assess review authors' use of and beliefs about providing intervention information.

DESIGN

Analysis of a random sample of systematic reviews of non-pharmacological stroke interventions; online survey of review authors.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION

The Cochrane Library and PubMed were searched for potentially eligible systematic reviews and a random sample of these assessed for eligibility until 60 (30 Cochrane, 30 non-Cochrane) eligible reviews were identified.

DATA COLLECTION

In each review, the completeness of the intervention description in each eligible trial (n=568) was assessed by 2 independent raters using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist. All review authors (n=46) were invited to complete a survey.

RESULTS

Most reviews were missing intervention information for the majority of items. The most incompletely described items were: modifications, fidelity, materials, procedure and tailoring (missing from all interventions in 97%, 90%, 88%, 83% and 83% of reviews, respectively). Items that scored better, but were still incomplete for the majority of reviews, were: 'when and how much' (in 31% of reviews, adequate for all trials; in 57% of reviews, adequate for some trials); intervention mode (in 22% of reviews, adequate for all trials; in 38%, adequate for some trials); and location (in 19% of reviews, adequate for all trials). Of the 33 (71%) authors who responded, 58% reported having further intervention information but not including it, and 70% tried to obtain information.

CONCLUSIONS

Most focus on intervention reporting has been directed at trials. Poor intervention reporting in stroke systematic reviews is prevalent, compounded by poor trial reporting. Without adequate intervention descriptions, the conduct, usability and interpretation of reviews are restricted and therefore, require action by trialists, systematic reviewers, peer reviewers and editors.

A guide for developing plain-language and contextual summaries of systematic reviews in agri-food public health

The application of systematic reviews is increasing in the agri-food public health sector to investigate the efficacy of policy-relevant interventions. In order to enhance the uptake and utility of these reviews for decision-making, there is a need to develop summary formats that are written in plain language and incorporate supporting contextual information. The objectives of this study were (1) to develop a guideline for summarizing systematic reviews in one- and three-page formats, and (2) to apply the guideline on two published systematic reviews that investigated the efficacy of vaccination and targeted feed and water additives to reduce Salmonella colonization in broiler chickens. Both summary formats highlight the key systematic review results and implications in plain language. Three-page summaries also incorporated four categories of contextual information (cost, availability, practicality, and other stakeholder considerations) to complement the systematic review findings. We collected contextual information through structured rapid reviews of the peer-reviewed and gray literature and by conducting interviews with 12 topic specialists. The overall utility of the literature searches and interviews depended on the specific intervention topic and contextual category. In general, interviews with topic specialists were the most useful and efficient method of gathering contextual information. Preliminary evaluation with five end-users indicated positive feedback on the summary formats. We estimate that one-page summaries could be developed by trained science-to-policy professionals in 3-5 days, while three-page summaries would require additional resources and time (e.g., 2-4 weeks). Therefore, one-page summaries are more suited for routine development, while three-page summaries could be developed for a more limited number of high-priority reviews. The summary guideline offers a structured and transparent approach to support the utilization of systematic reviews in decision-making in this sector. Future research is necessary to evaluate the utility of these summary formats for a variety of end-users in different contexts.

User involvement in a Cochrane systematic review: using structured methods to enhance the clinical relevance, usefulness and usability of a systematic review update

BACKGROUND

This paper describes the structured methods used to involve patients, carers and health professionals in an update of a Cochrane systematic review relating to physiotherapy after stroke and explores the perceived impact of involvement.

METHODS

We sought funding and ethical approval for our user involvement. We recruited a stakeholder group comprising stroke survivors, carers, physiotherapists and educators and held three pre-planned meetings during the course of updating a Cochrane systematic review. Within these meetings, we used formal group consensus methods, based on nominal group techniques, to reach consensus decisions on key issues relating to the structure and methods of the review.

RESULTS

The stakeholder group comprised 13 people, including stroke survivors, carers and physiotherapists with a range of different experience, and either 12 or 13 participated in each meeting. At meeting 1, there was consensus that methods of categorising interventions that were used in the original Cochrane review were no longer appropriate or clinically relevant (11/13 participants disagreed or strongly disagreed with previous categories) and that international trials (which had not fitted into the original method of categorisation) ought to be included within the review (12/12 participants agreed or strongly agreed these should be included). At meeting 2, the group members reached consensus over 27 clearly defined treatment components, which were to be used to categorise interventions within the review (12/12 agreed or strongly agreed), and at meeting 3, they agreed on the key messages emerging from the completed review. All participants strongly agreed that the views of the group impacted on the review update, that the review benefited from the involvement of the stakeholder group, and that they believed other Cochrane reviews would benefit from the involvement of similar stakeholder groups.

CONCLUSIONS

We involved a stakeholder group in the update of a Cochrane systematic review, using clearly described structured methods to reach consensus decisions. The involvement of stakeholders impacted substantially on the review, with the inclusion of international studies, and changes to classification of treatments, comparisons and subgroup comparisons explored within the meta-analysis. We argue that the structured approach which we adopted has implications for other systematic reviews.

Translating evidence into population health improvement: strategies and barriers

Among the challenges facing research translation-the effort to move evidence into policy and practice-is that key questions chosen by investigators and funders may not always align with the information priorities of decision makers, nor are the findings always presented in a form that is useful for or relevant to the decisions at hand. This disconnect is a problem particularly for population health, where the change agents who can make the biggest difference in improving health behaviors and social and environmental conditions are generally nonscientists outside of the health professions. To persuade an audience that does not read scientific journals, strong science may not be enough to elicit change. Achieving influence in population health often requires four ingredients for success: research that is responsive to user needs, an understanding of the decision-making environment, effective stakeholder engagement, and strategic communication. This article reviews the principles and provides examples from a national and local initiative.

Improving hospital care: are learning organizations the answer?

PURPOSE

Hospital leaders are being challenged to become more consumer-oriented, more interprofessional in their approach to care and more focused on outcome measures and continuous quality improvement. The concept of the learning organization could provide the conceptual framework necessary for understanding and addressing these various challenges in a systematic way. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

A scan of the literature reveals that this concept has been applied to hospitals and other health care institutions, but it is not known to what extent this concept has been linked to hospitals and with what outcomes. To bridge this gap, the question of whether learning organizations are the answer to improving hospital care needs to be considered. Hospitals are knowledge-intensive organizations in that there is a need for constant updating of the best available evidence and the latest medical techniques. It is widely acknowledged that learning may become the only sustainable competitive advantage for organizations, including hospitals.

FINDINGS

With the increased demand for accountability for quality care, fiscal responsibility and positive patient outcomes, exploring hospitals as learning organizations is timely and highly relevant to senior hospital administrators responsible for integrating best practices, interprofessional care and quality improvement as a primary means of achieving these outcomes.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

To date, there is a dearth of research on hospitals as learning organizations as it relates to improving hospital care.

Evaluating the guideline enhancement tool (GET): an innovative clinical training tool to enhance the use of hypertension guidelines in general practice

BACKGROUND

This project aims to evaluate the effectiveness of an innovative educational intervention in enhancing clinical decision making related to the management of hypertension in general practice. The relatively low level of uptake of clinical practice guidelines by clinicians is widely recognised as a problem that impacts on clinical outcomes. This project addresses this problem with a focus on hypertension guidelines. Hypertension is the most frequently managed problem in general practice but evidence suggests that management of Hypertension in general practice is sub-optimal.

METHODS/DESIGN

This study will explore the effectiveness of an educational intervention named the 'Guideline Enhancement Tool (GET)'. The intervention is designed to guide clinicians through a systematic process of considering key decision points related to the management of hypertension and provides a mechanism for clinicians to engage with the hypertension clinical guidelines. The intervention will be administered within the Australian General Practice Training program, via one of the regional training providers. Two cohorts of trainees will participate as the intervention and delayed intervention groups. This process is expected to improve clinicians' engagement with the hypertension guidelines in particular, and enhance their clinical reasoning abilities in general. The effectiveness of the intervention in improving clinical reasoning will be evaluated using the 'Script Concordance Test'.

DISCUSSION

The study design presented in this protocol aims to achieve two major outcomes. Firstly, the trial and evaluation of the educational intervention can lead to the development of a validated clinical education strategy that can be used in GP training to enhance the decision-making processes related to the management of hypertension. This has the potential to be adapted to other clinical conditions and training programs and can benefit clinicians in their clinical decision-making. Secondly, the study explores features that influence the effective use of clinical practice guidelines. The study thus addresses a significant problem in clinical education.

Evaluation of a minimal sedation protocol using ICU sedative consumption as a monitoring tool: a quality improvement multicenter project

Introduction

Oversedation frequently occurs in ICUs. We aimed to evaluate a minimal sedation policy, using sedative consumption as a monitoring tool, in a network of ICUs targeting decrement of oversedation and mechanical ventilation (MV) duration.

Methods

A prospective quality improvement project was conducted in ten ICUs within a network of nonteaching hospitals in Brazil during a 2-year period (2010 to 2012). In the first 12 months (the preintervention period), we conducted an audit to identify sedation practice and barriers to current guideline-based practice regarding sedation. In the postintervention period, we implemented a multifaceted program, including multidisciplinary daily rounds, and monthly audits focusing on sedative consumption, feedback and benchmarking purposes. To analyze the effect of the campaign, we fit an interrupted time series (ITS). To account for variability among the network ICUs, we fit a hierarchical model.

Results

During the study period, 21% of patients received MV (4,851/22,963). In the postintervention period, the length of MV was lower (3.91 ± 6.2 days versus 3.15 ± 4.6 days; mean difference, −0.76 (95% CI, −1.10; −0.43), P <0.001) and 28 ventilator-free days were higher (16.07 ± 12.2 days versus 18.33 ± 11.6 days; mean difference, 2.30 (95% CI, 1.57; 3.00), P <0.001) than in the preintervention period. Midazolam consumption (in milligrams per day of MV) decreased from 329 ± 70 mg/day to 163 ± 115 mg/day (mean difference, −167 (95% CI, −246; −87), P <0.001). In contrast, consumption of propofol (P = 0.007), dexmedetomidine (P = 0.017) and haloperidol (P = 0.002) increased in the postintervention period, without changes in the consumption of fentanyl. Through ITS, age (P = 0.574) and Simplified Acute Physiology Score III (P = 0.176) remained stable. The length of MV showed a secular effect (secular trend β₁ = −0.055, P = 0.012) and a strong decrease immediately after the intervention (intervention β₂ = −0.976, P <0.001). The impact was maintained over the course of one year, despite the waning trend for the intervention’s effect (postintervention trend β₃ = 0.039, P = 0.095).

Conclusions

By using a light sedation policy in a group of nonteaching hospitals, we reproduced the benefits that have previously been demonstrated in controlled settings. Furthermore, systematic monitoring of sedative consumption should be a feasible instrument for supporting the implementation of a protocol on a large scale.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-014-0580-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Improving the uptake of systematic reviews: a systematic review of intervention effectiveness and relevance

OBJECTIVE

Little is known about the barriers, facilitators and interventions that impact on systematic review uptake. The objective of this study was to identify how uptake of systematic reviews can be improved.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were included if they addressed interventions enhancing the uptake of systematic reviews. Reports in any language were included. All decisionmakers were eligible. Studies could be randomised trials, cluster-randomised trials, controlled-clinical trials and before-and-after studies.

DATA SOURCES

We searched 19 databases including PubMed, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library, covering the full range of publication years from inception to December 2010. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed quality according to the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care criteria.

RESULTS

10 studies from 11 countries, containing 12 interventions met our criteria. Settings included a hospital, a government department and a medical school. Doctors, nurses, mid-wives, patients and programme managers were targeted. Six of the studies were geared to improving knowledge and attitudes while four targeted clinical practice.

SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS

Three studies of low-to-moderate risk of bias, identified interventions that showed a statistically significant improvement: educational visits, short summaries of systematic reviews and targeted messaging. Promising interventions include e-learning, computer-based learning, inactive workshops, use of knowledge brokers and an e-registry of reviews. Juxtaposing barriers and facilitators alongside the identified interventions, it was clear that the three effective approaches addressed a wide range of barriers and facilitators.

DISCUSSION

A limited number of studies were found for inclusion. However, the extensive literature search is one of the strengths of this review.

CONCLUSIONS

Targeted messaging, educational visits and summaries are recommended to enhance systematic review uptake. Identified promising approaches need to be developed further. New strategies are required to encompass neglected barriers and facilitators. This review addressed effectiveness and also appropriateness of knowledge uptake strategies.

A cross-sectional survey of supports for evidence-informed decision-making in healthcare organisations: a research protocol

Background

This protocol builds on the development of a) a framework that identified the various supports (i.e. positions, activities, interventions) that a healthcare organisation or health system can implement for evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM) and b) a qualitative study that showed the current mix of supports that some Canadian healthcare organisations have in place and the ones that are perceived to facilitate the use of research evidence in decision-making. Based on these findings, we developed a web survey to collect cross-sectional data about the specific supports that regional health authorities and hospitals in two Canadian provinces (Ontario and Quebec) have in place to facilitate EIDM.

Methods/design

This paper describes the methods for a cross-sectional web survey among 32 regional health authorities and 253 hospitals in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario (Canada) to collect data on the current mix of organisational supports that these organisations have in place to facilitate evidence-informed decision-making. The data will be obtained through a two-step survey design: a 10-min survey among CEOs to identify key units and individuals in regard to our objectives (step 1) and a 20-min survey among managers of the key units identified in step 1 to collect information about the activities performed by their unit regarding the acquisition, assessment, adaptation and/or dissemination of research evidence in decision-making (step 2). The study will target three types of informants: CEOs, library/documentation centre managers and all other key managers whose unit is involved in the acquisition, assessment, adaptation/packaging and/or dissemination of research evidence in decision-making. We developed an innovative data collection system to increase the likelihood that only the best-informed respondent available answers each survey question. The reporting of the results will be done using descriptive statistics of supports by organisation type and by province.

Discussion

This study will be the first to collect and report large-scale cross-sectional data on the current mix of supports health system organisations in the two most populous Canadian provinces have in place for evidence-informed decision-making. The study will also provide useful information to researchers on how to collect organisation-level data with reduced risk of self-reporting bias.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-014-0146-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Feasibility of a rapid response mechanism to meet policymakers' urgent needs for research evidence about health systems in a low income country: a case study

OBJECTIVES

Despite the recognition of the importance of evidence-informed health policy and practice, there are still barriers to translating research findings into policy and practice. The present study aimed to establish the feasibility of a rapid response mechanism, a knowledge translation strategy designed to meet policymakers' urgent needs for evidence about health systems in a low income country, Uganda. Rapid response mechanisms aim to address the barriers of timeliness and relevance of evidence at the time it is needed.

METHODS

A rapid response mechanism (service) designed a priori was offered to policymakers in the health sector in Uganda. In the form of a case study, data were collected about the profile of users of the service, the kinds of requests for evidence, changes in answers, and courses of action influenced by the mechanism and their satisfaction with responses and the mechanism in general.

RESULTS

We found that in the first 28 months, the service received 65 requests for evidence from 30 policymakers and stakeholders, the majority of whom were from the Ministry of Health. The most common requests for evidence were about governance and organization of health systems. It was noted that regular contact between the policymakers and the researchers at the response service was an important factor in response to, and uptake of the service. The service seemed to increase confidence for policymakers involved in the policymaking process.

CONCLUSION

Rapid response mechanisms designed to meet policymakers' urgent needs for research evidence about health systems are feasible and acceptable to policymakers in low income countries.

Using logic model methods in systematic review synthesis: describing complex pathways in referral management interventions

BACKGROUND

There is increasing interest in innovative methods to carry out systematic reviews of complex interventions. Theory-based approaches, such as logic models, have been suggested as a means of providing additional insights beyond that obtained via conventional review methods.

METHODS

This paper reports the use of an innovative method which combines systematic review processes with logic model techniques to synthesise a broad range of literature. The potential value of the model produced was explored with stakeholders.

RESULTS

The review identified 295 papers that met the inclusion criteria. The papers consisted of 141 intervention studies and 154 non-intervention quantitative and qualitative articles. A logic model was systematically built from these studies. The model outlines interventions, short term outcomes, moderating and mediating factors and long term demand management outcomes and impacts. Interventions were grouped into typologies of practitioner education, process change, system change, and patient intervention. Short-term outcomes identified that may result from these interventions were changed physician or patient knowledge, beliefs or attitudes and also interventions related to changed doctor-patient interaction. A range of factors which may influence whether these outcomes lead to long term change were detailed. Demand management outcomes and intended impacts included content of referral, rate of referral, and doctor or patient satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

The logic model details evidence and assumptions underpinning the complex pathway from interventions to demand management impact. The method offers a useful addition to systematic review methodologies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO registration number: CRD42013004037.

Capturing lessons learned from evidence-to-policy initiatives through structured reflection

Background

Knowledge translation platforms (KTPs), which are partnerships between policymakers, stakeholders, and researchers, are being established in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to enhance evidence-informed health policymaking (EIHP). This study aims to gain a better understanding of the i) activities conducted by KTPs, ii) the way in which KTP leaders, policymakers, and stakeholders perceive these activities and their outputs, iii) facilitators that support KTP work and challenges, and the lessons learned for overcoming such challenges, and iv) factors that can help to ensure the sustainability of KTPs.

Methods

This paper triangulated qualitative data from: i) 17 semi-structured interviews with 47 key informants including KTP leaders, policymakers, and stakeholders from 10 KTPs; ii) document reviews, and iii) observation of deliberations at the International Forum on EIHP in LMICs held in Addis Ababa in August 2012. Purposive sampling was used and data were analyzed using thematic analysis.

Results

Deliberative dialogues informed by evidence briefs were identified as the most commendable tools by interviewees for enhancing EIHP. KTPs reported that they have contributed to increased awareness of the importance of EIHP and strengthened relationships among policymakers, stakeholders, and researchers. Support from policymakers and international funders facilitated KTP activities, while the lack of skilled human resources to conduct EIHP activities impeded KTPs. Ensuring the sustainability of EIHP initiatives after the end of funding was a major challenge for KTPs. KTPs reported that institutionalization within the government has helped to retain human resources and secure funding, whereas KTPs hosted by universities highlighted the advantage of autonomy from political interests.

Conclusions

The establishment of KTPs is a promising development in supporting EIHP. Real-time lesson drawing from the experiences of KTPs can support improvements in the functioning of KTPs in the short term, while making the case for sustaining their work in the long term. Lessons learned can help to promote similar EIHP initiatives in other countries.