Addressing the evidence to practice gap for complex interventions in primary care: a systematic review of reviews protocol

Barriers and facilitators to implementation of point-of-care lung ultrasonography in a tertiary centre in Benin: a qualitative study among general physicians and pneumologists

OBJECTIVES

Owing to its ease-of-use and excellent diagnostic performance for the assessment of respiratory symptoms, point-of-care lung ultrasound (POC-LUS) has emerged as an attractive skill in resource-low settings, where limited access to specialist care and inconsistent radiology services erode health equity.To narrow down the research to practice gap, this study aims to gain in-depth insights in the perceptions on POC-LUS and computer-assisted POC-LUS for the diagnosis of lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) in a low-income and middle-income country (LMIC) of sub-Saharan Africa.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Qualitative study using face-to-face semi-structured interviews with three pneumologists and five general physicians in a tertiary centre for pneumology and tuberculosis in Benin, West Africa. The center hosts a prospective cohort study on the diagnostic performance of POC-LUS for LRTI. In this context, all participants started a POC-LUS training programme 6 months before the current study. Transcripts were coded by the interviewer, checked for intercoder reliability by an independent psychologist, compared and thematically summarised according to grounded theory methods.

RESULTS

Various barriers- and facilitators+ to POC-LUS implementation were identified related to four principal categories: (1) hospital setting (eg, lack of resources for device renewal or maintenance-, need for POC tests+), (2) physician's perceptions (eg, lack of opportunity to practice-, willingness to appropriate the technique+), (3) tool characteristics (eg, unclear lifespan-, expedited diagnosis+) and (4) patient's experience (no analogous image to keep-, reduction in costs+). Furthermore, all interviewees had positive attitudes towards computer-assisted POC-LUS.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a clear need for POC affordable lung imaging techniques in LMIC and physicians are willing to implement POC-LUS to optimise the diagnostic approach of LRTI with an affordable tool. Successful integration of POC-LUS into clinical routine will require adequate responses to local challenges related to the lack of available maintenance resources and limited opportunity to supervised practice for physicians.

Mobilizing physiotherapy knowledge: Understanding the best evidence and barriers to implementation of hydrotherapy for musculoskeletal disease

OBJECTIVES

To explore two linked strategies to highlight the best current available evidence for hydrotherapy and to explore the barriers and enablers to mobilizing this evidence into practice.

METHOD

Phase 1: The best published evidence for hydrotherapy was collated using a Critically Appraised Topic (CAT) methodology. The focus was the best available research evidence for hydrotherapy in musculoskeletal conditions (i.e. osteoarthritis (OA), juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), and low back pain (LBP)). Once evaluated for quality, a summary of the evidence was produced in a Clinical Bottom Line (CBL). Phase 2: A Focus Group explored the: CBL, the barriers and facilitators of embedding the best evidence for hydrotherapy into practice.

RESULTS

Phase 1: The CAT identified seven studies that indicated hydrotherapy had beneficial, although short term, effects for common musculoskeletal conditions. Phase 2: Six participants from primary, secondary care, private practice, and education discussed the evidence identified. They highlighted issues such as: understanding the value of hydrotherapy, an overuse of quantitative methodologies and the quality of existing research as being barriers to this knowledge being actively mobilized into clinical care.

CONCLUSIONS

These two linked enquiries (CAT and Focus Group) identified the best evidence and the basis for discussion to explore barriers and facilitators of evidence use in practice. This gave an understanding of the reasons for the research to practice gap and thereby allows planning of knowledge mobilization strategies to reduce this.

Evidence-informed practice versus evidence-based practice educational interventions for improving knowledge, attitudes, understanding, and behavior toward the application of evidence into practice: A comprehensive systematic review of UG student

BACKGROUND

To produce graduates with strong knowledge and skills in the application of evidence into healthcare practice, it is imperative that all undergraduate health and social care students are taught, in an efficient manner, the processes involved in applying evidence into practice. The two main concepts that are linked to the application of evidence into practice are "evidence-based practice" and "evidence-informed practice." Globally, evidence-based practice is regarded as the gold standard for the provision of safe and effective healthcare. Despite the extensive awareness of evidence-based practice, healthcare practitioners continue to encounter difficulties in its implementation. This has generated an ongoing international debate as to whether evidence-based practice should be replaced with evidence-informed practice, and which of the two concepts better facilitate the effective and consistent application of evidence into healthcare practice.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this systematic review was to evaluate and synthesize literature on the effectiveness of evidence-informed practice versus evidence-based practice educational interventions for improving knowledge, attitudes, understanding, and behavior of undergraduate health and social care students toward the application of evidence into practice. Specifically, we planned to answer the following research questions: (1) Is there a difference (i.e., difference in content, outcome) between evidence-informed practice and evidence-based practice educational interventions? (2) Does participating in evidence-informed practice educational interventions relative to evidence-based practice educational interventions facilitate the application of evidence into practice (as measured by, e.g., self-reports on effective application of evidence into practice)? (3) Do both evidence-informed practice and evidence-based practice educational interventions targeted at undergraduate health and social care students influence patient outcomes (as measured by, e.g., reduced morbidity and mortality, absence of nosocomial infections)? (4) What factors affect the impact of evidence-informed practice and evidence-based practice educational interventions (as measured by, e.g., course content, mode of delivery, multifaceted interventions, standalone intervention)?

SEARCH METHODS

We utilized a number of search strategies to identify published and unpublished studies: (1) Electronic databases: we searched Academic Search Complete, Academic search premier, AMED, Australian education index, British education index, Campbell systematic reviews, Canada bibliographic database (CBCA Education), CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Database of Abstracts of Reviews on Effectiveness, Dissertation Abstracts International, Education Abstracts, Education complete, Education full text: Wilson, ERIC, Evidence-based program database, JBI database of systematic reviews, Medline, PsycInfo, Pubmed, SciELO (Scientific Electronic Library Online), and Scopus; (2) A web search using search engines such as Google and Google scholar; (3) Grey literature search: we searched OpenGrey (System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe), System for information on Grey Literature, the Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness, and Virginia Henderson Global Nursing e-Repository; (4) Hand searching of journal articles; and (5) Tracking bibliographies of previously retrieved studies. The searches were conducted in June 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include both quantitative (including randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental, before and after studies, prospective and retrospective cohort studies) and qualitative primary studies (including, case series, individual case reports, and descriptive cross-sectional studies, focus groups, and interviews, ethnography, phenomenology, and grounded theory), that evaluate and compare the effectiveness of any formal evidence-informed practice educational intervention to evidence-based practice educational intervention. The primary outcomes were evidence-informed practice and evidence-based practice knowledge, attitudes, understanding, and behavior. We planned to include, as participants, undergraduate pre-registration health and social care students from any geographical area.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened the search results to assess articles for their eligibility for inclusion. The screening involved an initial screening of the title and abstracts, and subsequently, the full-text of selected articles. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion or consultation with a third author. We found no article eligible for inclusion in this review.

MAIN RESULTS

No studies were found which were eligible for inclusion in this review. We evaluated and excluded 46 full-text articles. This is because none of the 46 studies had evaluated and compared the effectiveness of evidence-informed practice educational interventions with evidence-based practice educational interventions. Out of the 46 articles, 45 had evaluated solely, the effectiveness of evidence-based practice educational interventions and 1 article was on evidence-informed practice educational intervention. Hence, these articles were excluded as they did not meet the inclusion criteria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is an urgent need for primary studies evaluating the relative effectiveness of evidence-informed practice and evidence-based practice educational interventions targeted at improving undergraduate healthcare students' competencies regarding the application of evidence into practice. Such studies should be informed by current literature on the concepts (i.e., evidence-informed practice and evidence-based practice) to identify the differences, similarities, as well as appropriate content of the educational interventions. In this way, the actual effect of each of the concepts could be determined and their effectiveness compared.

Printed educational materials directed at Ontario family physicians do not improve adherence to guideline recommendations for diabetes management: a pragmatic, factorial, cluster randomized controlled trial [ISRCTN72772651]

Background

Printed educational materials (PEMs) have long been used to inform clinicians on evidence-based practices. However, the evidence for their effects on patient care and outcomes is unclear. In Ontario, despite widely available clinical practice guidelines recommending antihypertensives and cholesterol-lowering agents for patients with diabetes, prescriptions remain low. We aimed to determine whether PEMs can influence physicians to intensify prescribing of these medications.

Methods

A pragmatic, 2 × 2 factorial, cluster randomized controlled trial was designed to ascertain the effect of two PEM formats on physician prescribing: a postcard-sized message (“outsert”) or a longer narrative article (“insert”). Ontario family physician practices (clusters) were randomly allocated to receive the insert, outsert, both or neither. Physicians were eligible if they were in active practice and their patients were included if they were over 65 years with a diabetes diagnosis; both were unaware of the trial. Administrative databases at ICES (formerly the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences) were used to link patients to their physician and to analyse prescribing patterns at baseline and 1 year following PEM mailout. The primary outcome was intensification defined as the addition of a new antihypertensive or cholesterol-lowering agent, or dose increase of a current drug, measured at the patient level. Analyses were by intention-to-treat and accounted for the clustering of patients to physicians.

Results

We randomly assigned 4231 practices (39% of Ontario family physicians) with a total population of 185,526 patients (20% of patients with diabetes in Ontario primary care) to receive the insert, outsert, both, and neither; among these, 4118 practices were analysed (n = 1025, n = 1037, n = 1031, n = 1025, respectively). No significant treatment effect was found for the outsert (odds ratio (OR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98 to 1.04) or the insert (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.02). Percent of intensification in the four arms was similar (approximately 46%). Adjustment for physician characteristics (e.g., age, sex, practice location) had no impact on these findings.

Conclusions

PEMs have no effect on physician’s adherence to recommendations for the management of diabetes-related complications in Ontario. Further research should investigate the effect of other strategies to narrow this evidence-to-practice gap.

Trial registration

ISRCTN72772651. Retrospectively registered 21 July 2005.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12875-021-01592-9.

Integrated Care Programs for People with Multimorbidity in European Countries: eHealth Adoption in Health Systems

INTRODUCTION

eHealth applications have the potential to provide new integrated care services to patients with multimorbidity (MM), also supporting multidisciplinary care. The aim of this paper is to explore how widely eHealth tools have been currently adopted in integrated care programs for (older) people with MM in European countries, including benefits and barriers concerning their adoption, according to some basic health system characteristics.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In 2014, in the framework of the ICARE4EU project, expert organizations in 24 European countries identified 101 integrated care programs. Managers of the selected programs completed an online questionnaire on several dimensions, including the use of eHealth. We analyzed data from this questionnaire, in addition to qualitative information from six innovative programs which were studied in depth through case study methodology, according to characteristics of national health systems: a national health model (financing system), overall strength of primary care (PC) (structure/service delivery process), and level of (de)centralization of health system (executive powers in a country).

RESULTS

85 programs (out of 101) adopted at least one eHealth tool, and 42 of these targeted explicitly older people. In most cases, Electronic Health Records (EHRs) were used and some benefits emerged like improved care management and integration, although inadequate funding mechanisms represented a major barrier. The analysis by health system characteristics showed a greater adoption of eHealth applications in decentralized countries, in countries with a National Health Service (NHS) model, and in countries with a strong/medium level of PC development.

CONCLUSIONS

Although in the light of some limitations, findings indicate a relation between implementation of care programs using eHealth tools and basic characteristics of health systems, with decentralization of a health system, NHS model, and strong/medium PC having a key role. However adaptations of European health systems seem necessary, in order to provide a more innovative and integrated care.

The facilitators and barriers to implementing patient reported outcome measures in organisations delivering health related services: a systematic review of reviews

Background

There is increasing interest in using Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) within organisations delivering health related services. However, organisations have had mixed success in implementing PROMs and there is little understanding about why this may be. Thus, the purpose of this study was to identify the facilitators and barriers to implementing PROMs in organisations.

Method

A systematic review of reviews was undertaken. Searches were conducted of five electronic databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, during the week of the 20th February 2017. Additional search methods included website searching and reference checking. To be included, a publication had to be a review of the literature, describe its methods and include information related to implementing PROMs. The reviews were extracted using a standardised form and assessed for their risk of bias using the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews tool. The findings were synthesised using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. The protocol was registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews database (PROSPERO) (CRD42017057491).

Results

Initially 2047 records were identified. After assessing eligibility, six reviews were included. These reviews varied in their review type and focus. Different issues arose at distinct stages of the implementation process. Organisations needed to invest time and resources in two key stages early in the implementation process: ‘designing’ the processes for using PROMs within an organisation; and ‘preparing’ an organisation and its staff. The ‘designing’ stage involved organisations planning not just which PROMs to use and how to administer them, but also how the data would be used for clinical purposes. The ‘preparing’ stage involved getting an organisation and its staff ready to use PROMs, particularly persuading clinicians of the validity and value of PROMs, delivering training, and developing electronic systems. Having an implementation lead overseeing the process and developing the process based on feedback were also identified as facilitating implementation.

Conclusion

Organisations implementing PROMs need to invest time and resources in ‘designing’ the PROMs strategy and ‘preparing’ the organisation to use PROMs. Focusing on these earlier stages may prevent problems arising when PROMs are used in practice.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s41687-018-0072-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Improving the sustainability of hospital-based interventions: a study protocol for a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Sustaining effective interventions in hospital environments is essential to improving health outcomes, and reducing research waste. Current evidence suggests many interventions are not sustained beyond their initial delivery. The reason for this failure remains unclear. Increasingly research is employing theoretical frameworks and models to identify critical factors that influence the implementation of interventions. However, little is known about the value of these frameworks on sustainability. The aim of this review is to examine the evidence regarding the use of theoretical frameworks to maximise effective intervention sustainability in hospital-based settings in order to better understand their role in supporting long-term intervention use.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Systematic review. We will systematically search the following databases: Medline, AMED, CINAHL, Embase and Cochrane Library (CENTRAL, CDSR, DARE, HTA). We will also hand search relevant journals and will check the bibliographies of all included studies. Language and date limitations will be applied. We will include empirical studies that have used a theoretical framework (or model) and have explicitly reported the sustainability of an intervention (or programme). One reviewer will remove obviously irrelevant titles. The remaining abstracts and full-text articles will be screened by two independent reviewers to determine their eligibility for inclusion. Disagreements will be resolved by discussion, and may involve a third reviewer if required. Key study characteristics will be extracted (study design, population demographics, setting, evidence of sustained change, use of theoretical frameworks and any barriers or facilitators data reported) by one reviewer and cross-checked by another reviewer. Descriptive data will be tabulated within evidence tables, and key findings will be brought together within a narrative synthesis.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Formal ethical approval is not required as no primary data will be collected. Dissemination of results will be through peer-reviewed journal publications, presentation at an international conference and social media.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42017081992.

Use of the electronic Frailty Index to identify vulnerable patients: a pilot study in primary care

BACKGROUND

Identifying frailty is key to providing appropriate treatment for older people at high risk of adverse health outcomes. Screening tools proposed for primary care often involve additional workload. The electronic Frailty Index (eFI) has the potential to overcome this issue.

AIM

To assess the feasibility and acceptability of using the eFI in primary care.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Pilot study in one suburban primary care practice in southern England in 2016.

METHOD

Use of the eFI on the primary care TPP SystmOne database was explained to staff at the practice where a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) clinic was being trialled. The practice data manager ran an eFI report for all patients (n = 6670). Date of birth was used to identify patients aged ≥75 years (n = 589). The eFI was determined for patients attending the CGA clinic (n = 18).

RESULTS

Practice staff ran the eFI reports in 5 minutes, which they reported was feasible and acceptable. The eFI range was 0.03 to 0.61 (mean 0.23) for all patients aged ≥75 years (mean 83 years, range 75 to 102 years). For CGA patients (mean 82 years, range 75 to 94 years) the eFI range was 0.19 to 0.53 (mean 0.33). Importantly, the eFI scores identified almost 12% of patients aged ≥75 years in this practice to have severe frailty.

CONCLUSION

It was feasible and acceptable to use the eFI in this pilot study. A higher mean eFI in the CGA patients demonstrated construct validity for frailty identification. Practice staff recognised the potential for the eFI to identify the top 2% of vulnerable patients for avoiding unplanned admissions.

Critical analysis of e-health readiness assessment frameworks: suitability for application in developing countries

Introduction e-Health is an innovative way to make health services more effective and efficient and application is increasing worldwide. e-Health represents a substantial ICT investment and its failure usually results in substantial losses in time, money (including opportunity costs) and effort. Therefore it is important to assess e-health readiness prior to implementation. Several frameworks have been published on e-health readiness assessment, under various circumstances and geographical regions of the world. However, their utility for the developing world is unknown. Methods A literature review and analysis of published e-health readiness assessment frameworks or models was performed to determine if any are appropriate for broad assessment of e-health readiness in the developing world. A total of 13 papers described e-health readiness in different settings. Results and Discussion Eight types of e-health readiness were identified and no paper directly addressed all of these. The frameworks were based upon varying assumptions and perspectives. There was no underlying unifying theory underpinning the frameworks. Few assessed government and societal readiness, and none cultural readiness; all are important in the developing world. While the shortcomings of existing frameworks have been highlighted, most contain aspects that are relevant and can be drawn on when developing a framework and assessment tools for the developing world. What emerged is the need to develop different assessment tools for the various stakeholder sectors. This is an area that needs further research before attempting to develop a more generic framework for the developing world.

Using intervention mapping to develop a theory-driven, group-based complex intervention to support self-management of osteoarthritis and low back pain (SOLAS)

BACKGROUND

The Medical Research Council framework provides a useful general approach to designing and evaluating complex interventions, but does not provide detailed guidance on how to do this and there is little evidence of how this framework is applied in practice. This study describes the use of intervention mapping (IM) in the design of a theory-driven, group-based complex intervention to support self-management (SM) of patients with osteoarthritis (OA) and chronic low back pain (CLBP) in Ireland's primary care health system.

METHODS

The six steps of the IM protocol were systematically applied to develop the self-management of osteoarthritis and low back pain through activity and skills (SOLAS) intervention through adaptation of the Facilitating Activity and Self-management in Arthritis (FASA) intervention. A needs assessment including literature reviews, interviews with patients and physiotherapists and resource evaluation was completed to identify the programme goals, determinants of SM behaviour, consolidated definition of SM and required adaptations to FASA to meet health service and patient needs and the evidence. The resultant SOLAS intervention behavioural outcomes, performance and change objectives were specified and practical application methods selected, followed by organised programme, adoption, implementation and evaluation plans underpinned by behaviour change theory.

RESULTS

The SOLAS intervention consists of six weekly sessions of 90-min education and exercise designed to increase participants' physical activity level and use of evidence-based SM strategies (i.e. pain self-management, pain coping, healthy eating for weight management and specific exercise) through targeting of individual determinants of SM behaviour (knowledge, skills, self-efficacy, fear, catastrophizing, motivation, behavioural regulation), delivered by a trained physiotherapist to groups of up to eight individuals using a needs supportive interpersonal style based on self-determination theory. Strategies to support SOLAS intervention adoption and implementation included a consensus building workshop with physiotherapy stakeholders, development of a physiotherapist training programme and a pilot trial with physiotherapist and patient feedback.

CONCLUSIONS

The SOLAS intervention is currently being evaluated in a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial. IM is a time-intensive collaborative process, but the range of methods and resultant high level of transparency is invaluable and allows replication by future complex intervention and trial developers.

Achieving change in primary care--causes of the evidence to practice gap: systematic reviews of reviews

Background

This study is to identify, summarise and synthesise literature on the causes of the evidence to practice gap for complex interventions in primary care.

Design

This study is a systematic review of reviews.

Methods

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and PsychINFO were searched, from inception to December 2013. Eligible reviews addressed causes of the evidence to practice gap in primary care in developed countries. Data from included reviews were extracted and synthesised using guidelines for meta-synthesis.

Results

Seventy reviews fulfilled the inclusion criteria and encompassed a wide range of topics, e.g. guideline implementation, integration of new roles, technology implementation, public health and preventative medicine. None of the included papers used the term “cause” or stated an intention to investigate causes at all. A descriptive approach was often used, and the included papers expressed “causes” in terms of “barriers and facilitators” to implementation. We developed a four-level framework covering external context, organisation, professionals and intervention. External contextual factors included policies, incentivisation structures, dominant paradigms, stakeholders’ buy-in, infrastructure and advances in technology. Organisation-related factors included culture, available resources, integration with existing processes, relationships, skill mix and staff involvement. At the level of individual professionals, professional role, underlying philosophy of care and competencies were important. Characteristics of the intervention that impacted on implementation included evidence of benefit, ease of use and adaptability to local circumstances. We postulate that the “fit” between the intervention and the context is critical in determining the success of implementation.

Conclusions

This comprehensive review of reviews summarises current knowledge on the barriers and facilitators to implementation of diverse complex interventions in primary care. To maximise the uptake of complex interventions in primary care, health care professionals and commissioning organisations should consider the range of contextual factors, remaining aware of the dynamic nature of context. Future studies should place an emphasis on describing context and articulating the relationships between the factors identified here.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO CRD42014009410

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0396-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Achieving change in primary care--effectiveness of strategies for improving implementation of complex interventions: systematic review of reviews

OBJECTIVE

To identify, summarise and synthesise available literature on the effectiveness of implementation strategies for optimising implementation of complex interventions in primary care.

DESIGN

Systematic review of reviews.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and PsychINFO were searched, from first publication until December 2013; the bibliographies of relevant articles were screened for additional reports.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Eligible reviews had to (1) examine effectiveness of single or multifaceted implementation strategies, (2) measure health professional practice or process outcomes and (3) include studies from predominantly primary care in developed countries. Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts and full-text articles of potentially eligible reviews for inclusion.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Extracted data were synthesised using a narrative approach.

RESULTS

91 reviews were included. The most commonly evaluated strategies were those targeted at the level of individual professionals, rather than those targeting organisations or context. These strategies (eg, audit and feedback, educational meetings, educational outreach, reminders) on their own demonstrated a small to modest improvement (2-9%) in professional practice or behaviour with considerable variability in the observed effects. The effects of multifaceted strategies targeted at professionals were mixed and not necessarily more effective than single strategies alone. There was relatively little review evidence on implementation strategies at the levels of organisation and wider context. Evidence on cost-effectiveness was limited and data on costs of different strategies were scarce and/or of low quality.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a substantial literature on implementation strategies aimed at changing professional practices or behaviour. It remains unclear which implementation strategies are more likely to be effective than others and under what conditions. Future research should focus on identifying and assessing the effectiveness of strategies targeted at the wider context and organisational levels and examining the costs and cost-effectiveness of implementation strategies.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42014009410.

Effectiveness of multicomponent interventions in primary healthcare settings to promote continuous smoking cessation in adults: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the present review is to evaluate multicomponent/complex primary care (PC) interventions for their effectiveness in continuous smoking abstinence by adult smokers.

DESIGN

A systematic review of randomised and non-randomised controlled trials was undertaken.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR INCLUDED STUDIES

Selected studies met the following criteria: evaluated effects of a multicomponent/complex intervention (with 2 or more intervention components) in achieving at least 6-month abstinence in adult smokers who visited a PC, biochemical confirmation of abstinence, intention-to-treat analysis and results published in English/Spanish.

METHODS

We followed PRISMA statement to report the review. We searched the following data sources: MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus (from inception to February 2014), 3 key journals and a tobacco research bulletin. The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network checklists were used to evaluate methodological quality. Data selection, evaluation and extraction were done independently, using a paired review approach. Owing to the heterogeneity of interventions in the studies included, a meta-analysis was not conducted.

RESULTS

Of 1147 references identified, 9 studies were selected (10,204 participants, up to 48 months of follow-up, acceptable methodological quality). Methodologies used were mainly individual or group sessions, telephone conversations, brochures or quit-smoking kits, medications and economic incentives for doctors and no-cost medications for smokers. Complex interventions achieved long-term continuous abstinence ranging from 7% to 40%. Behavioural interventions were effective and had a dose-response effect. Both nicotine replacement and bupropion therapy were safe and effective, with no observed differences.

CONCLUSIONS

Multicomponent/complex interventions in PC are effective and safe, appearing to achieve greater long-term continuous smoking cessation than usual care and counselling alone. Selected studies were heterogeneous and some had significant losses to follow-up. Our results show that smoking interventions should include more than one component and a strong follow-up of the patient to maximise results.

Exploring the challenges of implementing e-health: a protocol for an update of a systematic review of reviews

INTRODUCTION

There is great potential for e-health to deliver cost-effective, quality healthcare and spending on e-health systems by governments and healthcare systems is increasing worldwide. However, the literature often describes problematic and unsuccessful attempts to implement these new technologies into routine clinical practice. To understand and address the challenges of implementing e-health, a systematic review was conducted in 2009, which identified several conceptual barriers and facilitators to implementation. As technology is rapidly changing and new e-health solutions are constantly evolving to meet the needs of current practice, an update of this review is deemed necessary to understand current challenges to the implementation of e-health. This research aims to identify, summarise and synthesise currently available evidence, by undertaking a systematic review of reviews to explore the barriers and facilitators to implementing e-health across a range of healthcare settings.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a protocol for an update of a systematic review of reviews. We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PSYCINFO and The Cochrane Library for studies published between 2009 and 2014. We will check reference lists of included studies for further studies. Two authors will independently screen the titles and abstracts identified from the search; any discrepancies will be resolved by discussion and consensus. Full-text papers will be obtained and relevant reviews will be selected against inclusion criteria. Eligible reviews have to be based on the implementation of e-health technologies. Data from eligible reviews will be extracted using a data abstraction form. A thematic analysis of barriers and facilitators to e-health implementation will be conducted.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval is not required. The permission of the original authors to update the review was sought and granted.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO CRD42015017661.