Clinician satisfaction with a preventive services implementation trial. The IMPROVE project

Implementation Science: Buzzword or Game Changer?

PURPOSE

The purpose of this supplement article is to provide a resource of pertinent information concerning implementation science for immediate research application in communication sciences and disorders.

METHOD

Key terminology related to implementation science is reviewed. Practical suggestions for the application of implementation science theories and methodologies are provided, including an overview of hybrid research designs that simultaneously investigate clinical effectiveness and implementation as well as an introduction to approaches for engaging stakeholders in the research process. A detailed example from education is shared to show how implementation science was utilized to move an intervention program for autism into routine practice in the public school system. In particular, the example highlights the value of strong partnership among researchers, policy makers, and frontline practitioners in implementing and sustaining new evidence-based practices.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation science is not just a buzzword. This is a new field of study that can make a substantive contribution in communication sciences and disorders by informing research agendas, reducing health and education disparities, improving accountability and quality control, increasing clinician satisfaction and competence, and improving client outcomes.

General health checks in adults for reducing morbidity and mortality from disease

BACKGROUND

General health checks are common elements of health care in some countries. These aim to detect disease and risk factors for disease with the purpose of reducing morbidity and mortality. Most of the commonly used screening tests offered in general health checks have been incompletely studied. Also, screening leads to increased use of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions, which can be harmful as well as beneficial. It is, therefore, important to assess whether general health checks do more good than harm.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to quantify the benefits and harms of general health checks with an emphasis on patient-relevant outcomes such as morbidity and mortality rather than on surrogate outcomes such as blood pressure and serum cholesterol levels.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Library, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Healthstar, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) to July 2012. Two authors screened titles and abstracts, assessed papers for eligibility and read reference lists. One author used citation tracking (Web of Knowledge) and asked trialists about additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials comparing health checks with no health checks in adults unselected for disease or risk factors. We did not include geriatric trials. We defined health checks as screening general populations for more than one disease or risk factor in more than one organ system.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the trials. We contacted authors for additional outcomes or trial details when necessary. For mortality outcomes we analysed the results with random-effects model meta-analysis, and for other outcomes we did a qualitative synthesis as meta-analysis was not feasible.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 trials, 14 of which had available outcome data (182,880 participants). Nine trials provided data on total mortality (155,899 participants, 11,940 deaths), median follow-up time nine years, giving a risk ratio of 0.99 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 1.03). Eight trials provided data on cardiovascular mortality (152,435 participants, 4567 deaths), risk ratio 1.03 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.17) and eight trials on cancer mortality (139,290 participants, 3663 deaths), risk ratio 1.01 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.12). Subgroup and sensitivity analyses did not alter these findings.We did not find an effect on clinical events or other measures of morbidity but one trial found an increased occurrence of hypertension and hypercholesterolaemia with screening and one trial found an increased occurence of self-reported chronic disease. One trial found a 20% increase in the total number of new diagnoses per participant over six years compared to the control group. No trials compared the total number of prescriptions, but two out of four trials found an increased number of people using antihypertensive drugs. Two out of four trials found small beneficial effects on self-reported health, but this could be due to reporting bias as the trials were not blinded. We did not find an effect on admission to hospital, disability, worry, additional visits to the physician, or absence from work, but most of these outcomes were poorly studied. We did not find useful results on the number of referrals to specialists, the number of follow-up tests after positive screening results, or the amount of surgery.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

General health checks did not reduce morbidity or mortality, neither overall nor for cardiovascular or cancer causes, although the number of new diagnoses was increased. Important harmful outcomes, such as the number of follow-up diagnostic procedures or short term psychological effects, were often not studied or reported and many trials had methodological problems. With the large number of participants and deaths included, the long follow-up periods used, and considering that cardiovascular and cancer mortality were not reduced, general health checks are unlikely to be beneficial.

Toward a system of cancer screening in the United States: trends and opportunities

The hard work of public health officials, physicians, and disease advocacy groups to educate Americans about the importance of early detection has resulted in uptake of screening tests at levels equivalent to or higher than in countries with organized cancer screening programs. However, the societal costs of high screening rates are larger in the United States than in other countries, including higher prices for screening, more unnecessary testing, and inefficiencies in delivery, especially in small practices. Further, screening rates are not evenly distributed across population groups, and the national expenditure on clinical and community research to promote cancer screening among individuals has not been matched by research efforts that focus on policy or clinical systems to increase screening widely throughout the population. We identify opportunities for organizational change that improve access to use, improve quality, and promote cost effectiveness in cancer screening delivery.