From intention to action: A systematic literature review of provider behaviour change-focused interventions in physical health and behavioural health settings

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

It is clear there are significant delays in the uptake of best practices as part of routine care in the healthcare system, yet there is conflicting evidence on how to specifically align provider behaviour with best practices.

METHOD

We conducted a review of interventions utilized to change any aspect of provider behaviour. To extend prior research, studies were included in the present review if they had an active intervention targeting behaviour change of providers in health or behavioural-health settings and were published between 2001 and 2020.

RESULTS

Of 1547 studies, 44 met inclusion criteria. Of 44 studies identified, 28 studies utilized contextually relevant interventions (eg, tailored to a specific provider population). Twenty six interventions with a contextually relevant approach resulted in provider behaviour change.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings are promising for encouraging provider behaviour change when interventions are tailored to be contextually relevant, as both single-component and multifaceted interventions were successful when they were contextually relevant. It is critical to conduct additional research to ensure that providers sustain behaviour changes over a long-term beyond an intervention's implementation and evaluation period.

The impacts of accountable care organizations on patient experience, health outcomes and costs: a rapid review

Objectives

Accountable care organizations were implemented as a system-level approach to address quality differences and curb increasing healthcare costs in the United States of America, and have garnered the interest of policy makers in other countries to support better management of patients. The objectives of this paper are to: (1) identify the impacts of accountable care organizations on improving the quadruple aim goals of improving patient experience of care, enhancing population health outcomes, reducing the per capita cost of health care and ensuring positive provider experiences and (2) determine how and why such impacts have been achieved through accountable care organizations.

Methods

We used a rapid review approach, searching Health Systems Evidence (for systematic reviews) and PubMed (for reviews and studies). Results were reviewed for inclusion independently by two researchers. Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked for consistency by another.

Results

We identified one recent systematic review and 59 primary studies that addressed the first objective ( n = 54), the second objective ( n = 4) or both objectives ( n = 1). The reviewed studies suggest that accountable care organizations reduce costs without reducing quality. Key findings related to objective 1 include: (1) there are positive trends across the quadruple–aim outcomes for accountable care organizations as compared to Medicare fee-for-service or group physician fee-for-service models; (2) accountable care organizations produced modest cost savings, which are largely attributable to savings in outpatient expenses among the most medically complex patients and reductions in the delivery of low-value services; (3) accountable care organization models met the majority of quality measures and perform better than their fee-for-service counterparts and (4) there is relatively little evidence about the impact of accountable care organizations on provider experience. Qualitative studies related to objective 2 highlighted mechanisms that were important for enabling accountable care organizations, including supplemental staff to enhance coordination and accountable care organization-wide electronic health records.

Conclusions

General trends and increased adoption of models similar to accountable care organizations outside of the USA suggest that these models outperform traditional fee-for-service models across the quadruple aim goals, although with mixed evidence about health outcomes.

From programme theory to logic models for multispecialty community providers: a realist evidence synthesis

Background

The NHS policy of constructing multispecialty community providers (MCPs) rests on a complex set of assumptions about how health systems can replace hospital use with enhanced primary care for people with complex, chronic or multiple health problems, while contributing savings to health-care budgets.

Objectives

To use policy-makers’ assumptions to elicit an initial programme theory (IPT) of how MCPs can achieve their outcomes and to compare this with published secondary evidence and revise the programme theory accordingly.

Design

Realist synthesis with a three-stage method: (1) for policy documents, elicit the IPT underlying the MCP policy, (2) review and synthesise secondary evidence relevant to those assumptions and (3) compare the programme theory with the secondary evidence and, when necessary, reformulate the programme theory in a more evidence-based way.

Data sources

Systematic searches and data extraction using (1) the Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC) database for policy statements and (2) topically appropriate databases, including MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycINFO, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ASSIA). A total of 1319 titles and abstracts were reviewed in two rounds and 116 were selected for full-text data extraction. We extracted data using a formal data extraction tool and synthesised them using a framework reflecting the main policy assumptions.

Results

The IPT of MCPs contained 28 interconnected context–mechanism–outcome relationships. Few policy statements specified what contexts the policy mechanisms required. We found strong evidence supporting the IPT assumptions concerning organisational culture, interorganisational network management, multidisciplinary teams (MDTs), the uses and effects of health information technology (HIT) in MCP-like settings, planned referral networks, care planning for individual patients and the diversion of patients from inpatient to primary care. The evidence was weaker, or mixed (supporting some of the constituent assumptions but not others), concerning voluntary sector involvement, the effects of preventative care on hospital admissions and patient experience, planned referral networks and demand management systems. The evidence about the effects of referral reductions on costs was equivocal. We found no studies confirming that the development of preventative care would reduce demands on inpatient services. The IPT had overlooked certain mechanisms relevant to MCPs, mostly concerning MDTs and the uses of HITs.

Limitations

The studies reviewed were limited to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries and, because of the large amount of published material, the period 2014–16, assuming that later studies, especially systematic reviews, already include important earlier findings. No empirical studies of MCPs yet existed.

Conclusions

Multidisciplinary teams are a central mechanism by which MCPs (and equivalent networks and organisations) work, provided that the teams include the relevant professions (hence, organisations) and, for care planning, individual patients. Further primary research would be required to test elements of the revised logic model, in particular about (1) how MDTs and enhanced general practice compare and interact, or can be combined, in managing referral networks and (2) under what circumstances diverting patients from in-patient to primary care reduces NHS costs and improves the quality of patient experience.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016038900.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and supported by the NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care South West Peninsula.

How much do clinicians support patient self-management? The development of a measure to assess clinician self-management support

BACKGROUND

Primary care provider (PCP) support of patient self-management may be important mechanism to improving patient health outcomes. In this paper we develop a PCP-reported measure of clinician strategies for supporting patient self-management, and we psychometrically test and validate the measure.

METHODS

We developed survey items based upon effective self-management support strategies identified in a prior mixed methods study. We fielded a survey in the fall of 2014 with 139 Fairview Health Services PCPs, and conducted exploratory factor analysis and Cronbach's Alpha to test for scale reliability. To validate the measure, we examined the Self-Management Support (SMS) scale's relationship to survey items on self-management support, as well as clinicians' patient panel rates of smoking cessation and weight loss.

RESULTS

Nine survey items clustered reliably to create a single factor (Cronbach's Alpha=0.73). SMS scores ranged from 2.1 to 4.9. The SMS was related to each of the validation variables. PCPs who reported spending 60% percent or more of their time counseling, educating, and coaching patients had a mean SMS score of 4.0, while those who reported spending less than 30% of their time doing so had mean SMS scores 15% lower. PCPs' SMS scores exhibited significant but modest associations with their patients' smoking cessation and weight loss (among obese patients) (r=0.21 and r=0.13 respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

This study develops and tests a promising measure of PCPs' strategies to support patient self-management. It highlights variation across PCPs. Future work should examine whether increasing scores of PCPs low on the SMS improves chronic care quality outcomes.