1
|
Susanto A, Burk J, Hocking S, Markovic T, Gill T. Differences in weight loss outcomes for males and females on a low-carbohydrate diet: A systematic review. Obes Res Clin Pract 2022; 16:447-456. [PMID: 36244957 DOI: 10.1016/j.orcp.2022.09.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/24/2022] [Revised: 09/23/2022] [Accepted: 09/27/2022] [Indexed: 12/05/2022]
Abstract
It has been widely demonstrated that there are a broad range of individual responses to all weight management regimens, often masked by reports of the mean. Identifying features of responders and non-responders to weight loss regimens enables a more tailored approach to the provision of weight management advice. Low-carbohydrate diets are currently popular, and anecdote suggests that males are more successful at losing weight using this approach. This is feasible given the physiological and socio-psychological differences between the genders. We analysed the extent and variation in weight change for males and females separately through a systematic search for all low-carbohydrate diet trials published since 1985. Very few studies compared weight loss outcomes by gender and, of those that did, most lacked supporting data. The majority of studies reported no gender difference but when a gender difference was found, males were more frequently reported as losing more weight than females on a low-carbohydrate diet. The lack of gender stratification in weight loss trials is concerning, as there are a range of gender-based factors that affect weight loss outcomes. This study highlights the importance of examining weight change for males and females separately, since as failure to do so may mask any potential differences, which, if detected, could assist with better weight loss outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alyssa Susanto
- Boden Group, Central Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Charles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
| | - Jessica Burk
- Boden Group, Central Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Charles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
| | - Samantha Hocking
- Boden Group, Central Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Charles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia; Metabolism & Obesity Service, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, NSW 2050, Australia
| | - Tania Markovic
- Boden Group, Central Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Charles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia; Metabolism & Obesity Service, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, NSW 2050, Australia
| | - Tim Gill
- Boden Group, Central Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Charles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Vis C, Mol M, Kleiboer A, Bührmann L, Finch T, Smit J, Riper H. Improving Implementation of eMental Health for Mood Disorders in Routine Practice: Systematic Review of Barriers and Facilitating Factors. JMIR Ment Health 2018; 5:e20. [PMID: 29549072 PMCID: PMC5878369 DOI: 10.2196/mental.9769] [Citation(s) in RCA: 109] [Impact Index Per Article: 18.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/04/2018] [Revised: 02/07/2018] [Accepted: 02/08/2018] [Indexed: 01/18/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Electronic mental health interventions (eMental health or eMH) can be used to increase accessibility of mental health services for mood disorders, with indications of comparable clinical outcomes as face-to-face psychotherapy. However, the actual use of eMH in routine mental health care lags behind expectations. Identifying the factors that might promote or inhibit implementation of eMH in routine care may help to overcome this gap between effectiveness studies and routine care. OBJECTIVE This paper reports the results of a systematic review of the scientific literature identifying those determinants of practices relevant to implementing eMH for mood disorders in routine practice. METHODS A broad search strategy was developed with high sensitivity to four key terms: implementation, mental health care practice, mood disorder, and eMH. The reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance (RE-AIM) framework was applied to guide the review and structure the results. Thematic analysis was applied to identify the most important determinants that facilitate or hinder implementation of eMH in routine practice. RESULTS A total of 13,147 articles were screened, of which 48 studies were included in the review. Most studies addressed aspects of the reach (n=33) of eMH, followed by intervention adoption (n=19), implementation of eMH (n=6), and maintenance (n=4) of eMH in routine care. More than half of the studies investigated the provision of mental health services through videoconferencing technologies (n=26), followed by Internet-based interventions (n=20). The majority (n=44) of the studies were of a descriptive nature. Across all RE-AIM domains, we identified 37 determinants clustered in six main themes: acceptance, appropriateness, engagement, resources, work processes, and leadership. The determinants of practices are expressed at different levels, including patients, mental health staff, organizations, and health care system level. Depending on the context, these determinants hinder or facilitate successful implementation of eMH. CONCLUSIONS Of the 37 determinants, three were reported most frequently: (1) the acceptance of eMH concerning expectations and preferences of patients and professionals about receiving and providing eMH in routine care, (2) the appropriateness of eMH in addressing patients' mental health disorders, and (3) the availability, reliability, and interoperability with other existing technologies such as the electronic health records are important factors for mental health care professionals to remain engaged in providing eMH to their patients in routine care. On the basis of the taxonomy of determinants of practices developed in this review, implementation-enhancing interventions can be designed and applied to achieve better implementation outcomes. Suggestions for future research and implementation practice are provided.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christiaan Vis
- Department of Clinical, Neuro-, & Developmental Psychology, Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.,Department of Mental Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Medical Center / Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Mayke Mol
- Department of Mental Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Medical Center / Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.,Department of Research and Innovation, Specialized Mental Health Care, GGZ InGeest, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Annet Kleiboer
- Department of Clinical, Neuro-, & Developmental Psychology, Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.,Department of Mental Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Medical Center / Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Leah Bührmann
- Department of Clinical, Neuro-, & Developmental Psychology, Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.,Department of Mental Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Medical Center / Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Tracy Finch
- Healthcare & Implementation Science, Department of Nursing, Midwifery & Health, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom
| | - Jan Smit
- Department of Mental Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Medical Center / Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.,Department of Research and Innovation, Specialized Mental Health Care, GGZ InGeest, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Heleen Riper
- Department of Clinical, Neuro-, & Developmental Psychology, Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.,Department of Mental Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Medical Center / Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.,Department of Research and Innovation, Specialized Mental Health Care, GGZ InGeest, Amsterdam, Netherlands.,Telepsychiatric Unit, Faculty of Health Science, University Hospital / University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Flodgren G, Gonçalves‐Bradley DC, Summerbell CD. Interventions to change the behaviour of health professionals and the organisation of care to promote weight reduction in children and adults with overweight or obesity. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 11:CD000984. [PMID: 29190418 PMCID: PMC6486102 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd000984.pub3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The prevalence of overweight and obesity is increasing globally, an increase which has major implications for both population health and costs to health services. This is an update of a Cochrane Review. OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of strategies to change the behaviour of health professionals or the organisation of care compared to standard care, to promote weight reduction in children and adults with overweight or obesity. SEARCH METHODS We searched the following databases for primary studies up to September 2016: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, DARE and PsycINFO. We searched the reference lists of included studies and two trial registries. SELECTION CRITERIA We considered randomised trials that compared routine provision of care with interventions aimed either at changing the behaviour of healthcare professionals or the organisation of care to promote weight reduction in children and adults with overweight or obesity. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane when conducting this review. We report the results for the professional interventions and the organisational interventions in seven 'Summary of findings' tables. MAIN RESULTS We identified 12 studies for inclusion in this review, seven of which evaluated interventions targeting healthcare professional and five targeting the organisation of care. Eight studies recruited adults with overweight or obesity and four recruited children with obesity. Eight studies had an overall high risk of bias, and four had a low risk of bias. In total, 139 practices provided care to 89,754 people, with a median follow-up of 12 months. Professional interventions Educational interventions aimed at general practitioners (GPs), may slightly reduce the weight of participants (mean difference (MD) -1.24 kg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.84 to 0.37; 3 studies, N = 1017 adults; low-certainty evidence).Tailoring interventions to improve GPs' compliance with obesity guidelines probably leads to little or no difference in weight loss (MD 0.05 (kg), 95% CI -0.32 to 0.41; 1 study, N = 49,807 adults; moderate-certainty evidence).It is uncertain if providing doctors with reminders results in a greater weight reduction than standard care (men: MD -11.20 kg, 95% CI -20.66 kg to -1.74 kg, and women: MD -1.30 kg, 95% CI [-7.34, 4.74] kg; 1 study, N = 90 adults; very low-certainty evidence).Providing clinicians with a clinical decision support (CDS) tool to assist with obesity management at the point of care leads to little or no difference in the body mass index (BMI) z-score of children (MD -0.08, 95% CI -0.15 to -0.01 in 378 children; moderate-certainty evidence), CDS tools may lead to little or no difference in weight loss in adults: MD -0.095 kg (-0.21 lbs), P = 0.47; 1 study, N = 35,665; low-certainty evidence. Organisational interventions Adults with overweight or obesity may lose more weight if the care was provided by a dietitian (by -5.60 kg, 95% CI -4.83 kg to -6.37 kg) or by a doctor-dietitian team (by -6.70 kg, 95% CI -7.52 kg to -5.88 kg; 1 study, N = 270 adults; low-certainty evidence). Shared care leads to little or no difference in the BMI z-score of children with obesity (adjusted MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.03; 1 study, N = 105 children; low-certainty evidence).Organisational restructuring of the delivery of primary care (i.e. introducing the chronic care model) may result in a slightly lower increase in the BMI of children who received care at intervention clinics (BMI change: adjusted MD -0.21, 95% CI -0.50 to 0.07; 1 study, unadjusted MD -0.18, 95% CI -0.20 to -0.16; N=473 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).Mail and phone interventions probably lead to little or no difference in weight loss in adults (mean weight change (kg) using mail: -0.36, 95% CI -1.18 to 0.46; phone: -0.44, 95% CI -1.26 to 0.38; 1 study, N = 1801 adults; moderate-certainty evidence). Care delivered by a nurse at a primary care clinic may lead to little or no difference in the BMI z-score in children (MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.12; 1 study, N = 52 children; very low-certainty evidence).Two studies reported data on cost effectiveness: one study favoured mail and standard care over telephone consultations, and the other study achieved weight loss at a modest cost in both intervention groups (doctor and doctor-dietitian). One study of shared care reported similar adverse effects in both groups. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS We found little convincing evidence for a clinically-important effect on participants' weight or BMI of any of the evaluated interventions. While pooled results from three studies indicate that educational interventions targeting healthcare professionals may lead to a slight weight reduction in adults, the certainty of these results is low. Two trials evaluating CDS tools (unpooled results) for improved weight management suggest little or no effect on weight or BMI change in adults or children with overweight or obesity. Evidence for all the other interventions evaluated came mostly from single studies. The certainty of the included evidence varied from moderate to very low for the main outcomes (weight and BMI). All of the evaluated interventions would need further investigation to ascertain their strengths and limitations as effective strategies to change the behaviour of healthcare professionals or the organisation of care. As only two studies reported on cost, we know little about cost effectiveness across the evaluated interventions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gerd Flodgren
- Norwegian Institute of Public HealthDivision for Health ServicesPilestredet Park 7OsloNorway0176
| | | | - Carolyn D Summerbell
- Queen's Campus, Durham UniversitySchool of Medicine, Pharmacy and Health, Wolfson Research InstituteUniversity BoulevardThornabyStockton‐on‐TeesUKTS17 6BH
| | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
A tailored programme to implement recommendations for multimorbid patients with polypharmacy in primary care practices-process evaluation of a cluster randomized trial. Implement Sci 2017; 12:31. [PMID: 28264693 PMCID: PMC5339959 DOI: 10.1186/s13012-017-0559-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/12/2016] [Accepted: 02/14/2017] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
Background We developed and evaluated a tailored programme to implement three evidence-based recommendations for multimorbid patients with polypharmacy into primary care practices: structured medication counselling including brown bag reviews, the use of medication lists and medication reviews. No effect on the primary outcome was found. This process evaluation aimed to identify factors associated with outcomes by exploring nine hypotheses specified in the logic model of the tailored programme. Methods The tailored programme was developed with respect to identified determinants of practice and consisted of a workshop for practice teams, elaboration of implementation action plans, aids for medication reviews, a multilingual info-tool for patients on a tablet PC, posters and brown paper bags as reminders for patients. The tailored programme was evaluated in a cluster randomized trial. The process evaluation was based on various data sources: interviews with general practitioners and medical assistants of the intervention group and a survey with general practitioners of the intervention and control group, written reports on the implementation action plans, documentation forms for structured medication counselling and the log file of the info-tool. Results We analyzed 12 interviews, 21 questionnaires, 120 documentation forms for medication counselling, 5 implementation action plans and one log file of the info-tool. The most frequently reported effect of the tailored programme was the increase of awareness for the health problem and the recommendations, while implementation of routine processes was only reported for structured medication counselling. The survey largely confirmed the usefulness of the applied strategies, yet the interviews provided a more detailed understanding of the actual use of the strategies and several suggestions for modifications of the tailored programme. Conclusions The tailored programme seemed to have induced awareness as a first step of behaviour change. Several modifications of the tailored programme may enhance its effectiveness such as conducting outreach visits instead of a workshop, improved targeting, provision of evidence, integration of tools into the practice software and information materials in tailored formats. Trial registration This study is linked to an outcome evaluation study with the registration ISRCTN34664024, assigned 14/08/2013. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-017-0559-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Collapse
|
5
|
Jäger C, Freund T, Steinhäuser J, Stock C, Krisam J, Kaufmann-Kolle P, Wensing M, Szecsenyi J. Impact of a tailored program on the implementation of evidence-based recommendations for multimorbid patients with polypharmacy in primary care practices-results of a cluster-randomized controlled trial. Implement Sci 2017; 12:8. [PMID: 28086976 PMCID: PMC5237147 DOI: 10.1186/s13012-016-0535-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 28] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/17/2016] [Accepted: 12/09/2016] [Indexed: 01/10/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Multimorbid patients receiving polypharmacy represent a growing population at high risk for negative health outcomes. Tailoring is an approach of systematic intervention development taking account of previously identified determinants of practice. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of a tailored program to improve the implementation of three important processes of care for this patient group: (a) structured medication counseling including brown bag reviews, (b) the use of medication lists, and (c) structured medication reviews to reduce potentially inappropriate medication. METHODS We conducted a cluster-randomized controlled trial with a follow-up time of 9 months. Participants were general practitioners (GPs) organized in quality circles and participating in a GP-centered care contract of a German health insurance. Patients aged >50 years, suffering from at least 3 chronic diseases, receiving more than 4 drugs, and being at high risk for medication-related events according to the assessment of the treating GP were enrolled. The tailored program consisted of a workshop for GPs and health care assistants, educational materials and reminders for patients, and the elaboration of implementation action plans. The primary outcome was the change in the degree of implementation between baseline and follow-up, measured by a summary score of 10 indicators. The indicators were based on structured surveys with patients and GPs. RESULTS We analyzed the data of 21 GPs (10 - intervention group, 11 - control group) and 273 patients (130 - intervention group, 143 - control group). The increase in the degree of implementation was 4.2 percentage points (95% confidence interval: -0.3, 8.6) higher in the intervention group compared to the control group (p = 0.1). Two of the 10 indicators were significantly improved in the intervention group: medication counseling (p = 0.017) and brown bag review (p = 0.012). Secondary outcomes showed an effect on patients' self-reported use of medication lists when buying drugs in the pharmacy (p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS The tailored program may improve implementation of medication counseling and brown bag review whereas the use of medication lists and medication reviews did not improve. No effect of the tailored program on the combined primary outcome could be substantiated. Due to limitations of the study, results have to be interpreted carefully. The factors facilitating and hindering successful implementation will be examined in a comprehensive process evaluation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER ISRCTN34664024 , assigned 14/08/2013.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cornelia Jäger
- Department of General Practice and Health Services Research, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, Turm West, 4.OG, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
| | - Tobias Freund
- Department of General Practice and Health Services Research, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, Turm West, 4.OG, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Jost Steinhäuser
- Institute of Family Medicine, UniversityHospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Ratzburger Allee 160, Haus 50, 23538, Lübeck, Germany
| | - Christian Stock
- Department of Medical Biometry, Institute of Medical Biometry and Informatics, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, Turm West, 12.OG, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Johannes Krisam
- Department of Medical Biometry, Institute of Medical Biometry and Informatics, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, Turm West, 12.OG, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Petra Kaufmann-Kolle
- Institute for Applied Quality Improvement and Research in Health Care GmbH, (AQUA-Institute), Maschmühlenweg 8-10, 37073, Göttingen, Germany
| | - Michel Wensing
- Department of General Practice and Health Services Research, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, Turm West, 4.OG, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Joachim Szecsenyi
- Department of General Practice and Health Services Research, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, Turm West, 4.OG, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Jäger C, Steinhäuser J, Freund T, Baker R, Agarwal S, Godycki-Cwirko M, Kowalczyk A, Aakhus E, Granlund I, van Lieshout J, Szecsenyi J, Wensing M. Process evaluation of five tailored programs to improve the implementation of evidence-based recommendations for chronic conditions in primary care. Implement Sci 2016; 11:123. [PMID: 27624776 PMCID: PMC5022166 DOI: 10.1186/s13012-016-0473-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/14/2016] [Accepted: 07/14/2016] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Although there is evidence that tailored implementation strategies can be effective, there is little evidence on which methods of tailoring improve the effect. We designed and evaluated five tailored programs (TPs) each consisting of various strategies. The aim of this study was to examine (a) how determinants of practice prioritized in the design phase of the TPs were perceived by health care professionals who had been exposed to the TPs and whether they suggested other important determinants of practice and (b) how professionals used the offered strategies and whether they suggested other strategies that might have been more effective. Methods We conducted a mixed-method process evaluation linked to five cluster-randomized trials carried out in five European countries to implement recommendations for five chronic conditions in primary care settings. The five TPs used a total of 28 strategies which aimed to address 38 determinants of practice. Interviews of professionals in the intervention groups and a survey of professionals in the intervention and control groups were performed. Data collection was conducted by each research team in the respective national language. The interview data were first analyzed inductively by each research team, and subsequently, a meta-synthesis was conducted. The survey was analyzed descriptively. Results We conducted 71 interviews; 125 professionals completed the survey. The survey showed that 76 % (n = 29) of targeted determinants of practice were perceived as relevant and 95 % (n = 36) as being modified by the implementation interventions by 66 to 100 % of professionals. On average, 47 % of professionals reported using the strategies and 51 % considered them helpful, albeit with substantial variance between countries and strategies. In the interviews, 89 determinants of practice were identified, of which 70 % (n = 62) had been identified and 45 % (n = 40) had been prioritized in the design phase. The interviewees suggested 65 additional strategies, of which 54 % (n = 35) had been identified and 20 % (n = 13) had been prioritized, but not selected in the final programs. Conclusions This study largely confirmed the perceived relevance of the targeted determinants of practice. This contrasts with the fact that no impact of the trials on the implementation of the recommendations could be observed. The findings suggest that better methods for prioritization of determinants and strategies are needed. Trial registration Each of the five trials was registered separately in recognized trial registries. Details are given in the respective trial outcome papers. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0473-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- C Jäger
- Department of General Practice and Health Services Research, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, Turm West, 4. OG, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
| | - J Steinhäuser
- University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Institute of Family Practice, Ratzburger Allee 160, Haus 50, 23538, Lübeck, Germany
| | - T Freund
- Department of General Practice and Health Services Research, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, Turm West, 4. OG, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - R Baker
- Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, 22-28 Princess Road West, Leicester, LE16TP, UK
| | - S Agarwal
- Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, 22-28 Princess Road West, Leicester, LE16TP, UK
| | - M Godycki-Cwirko
- Centre for Family and Community Medicine, Medical University of Lodz, Kopcinskiego 20, 90-153, Lodz, Poland
| | - A Kowalczyk
- Centre for Family and Community Medicine, Medical University of Lodz, Kopcinskiego 20, 90-153, Lodz, Poland
| | - E Aakhus
- Research Center for Old Age Psychiatry in Innlandet Hospital Trust, N-2312, Ottestad, Norway.,Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, Postboks 7004, St. Olavs plass, 0130, Oslo, Norway
| | - I Granlund
- Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, Postboks 7004, St. Olavs plass, 0130, Oslo, Norway
| | - J van Lieshout
- Medical Centre, Scientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare, Radboud University, PO Box 9101, 114 IQ Healthcare, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - J Szecsenyi
- Department of General Practice and Health Services Research, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, Turm West, 4. OG, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - M Wensing
- Department of General Practice and Health Services Research, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, Turm West, 4. OG, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Goodfellow J, Agarwal S, Harrad F, Shepherd D, Morris T, Ring A, Walker N, Rogers S, Baker R. Cluster randomised trial of a tailored intervention to improve the management of overweight and obesity in primary care in England. Implement Sci 2016; 11:77. [PMID: 27233633 PMCID: PMC4884420 DOI: 10.1186/s13012-016-0441-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/25/2015] [Accepted: 05/15/2016] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Tailoring is a frequent component of approaches for implementing clinical practice guidelines, although evidence on how to maximise the effectiveness of tailoring is limited. In England, overweight and obesity are common, and national guidelines have been produced by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. However, the guidelines are not routinely followed in primary care. Methods A tailored implementation intervention was developed following an analysis of the determinants of practice influencing the implementation of the guidelines on obesity and the selection of strategies to address the determinants. General practices in the East Midlands of England were invited to take part in a cluster randomised controlled trial of the intervention. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of overweight or obese patients offered a weight loss intervention. Secondary outcomes were the proportions of patients with (1) a BMI or waist circumference recorded, (2) record of lifestyle assessment, (3) referred to weight loss services, and (4) any change in weight during the study period. We also assessed the mean weight change over the study period. Follow-up was for 9 months after the intervention. A process evaluation was undertaken, involving interviews of samples of participating health professionals. Results There were 16 general practices in the control group, and 12 in the intervention group. At follow-up, 15.08 % in the control group and 13.19 % in the intervention group had been offered a weight loss intervention, odds ratio (OR) 1.16, 95 % confidence interval (CI) (0.72, 1.89). BMI/waist circumference measurement 42.71 % control, 39.56 % intervention, OR 1.15 (CI 0.89, 1.48), referral to weight loss services 5.10 % control, 3.67 % intervention, OR 1.45 (CI 0.81, 2.63), weight management in the practice 9.59 % control, 8.73 % intervention, OR 1.09 (CI 0.55, 2.15), lifestyle assessment 23.05 % control, 23.86 % intervention, OR 0.98 (CI 0.76, 1.26), weight loss of at least 1 kg 42.22 % control, 41.65 % intervention, OR 0.98 (CI 0.87, 1.09). Health professionals reported the interventions as increasing their confidence in managing obesity and providing them with practical resources. Conclusions The tailored intervention did not improve the implementation of the guidelines on obesity, despite systematic approaches to the identification of the determinants of practice. The methods of tailoring require further development to ensure that interventions target those determinants that most influence implementation. Trial registration ISRCTN07457585 Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0441-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jane Goodfellow
- Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, 22-28 Princess Road West, Leicester, LE1 6TP, UK.,Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Coventry University, Richard Crossman Building, Priory Street, Coventry, CV1 5FB, UK
| | - Shona Agarwal
- Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, 22-28 Princess Road West, Leicester, LE1 6TP, UK
| | - Fawn Harrad
- Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, 22-28 Princess Road West, Leicester, LE1 6TP, UK
| | - David Shepherd
- Saffron Group Practice, 509 Saffron Lane, Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | - Tom Morris
- Leicester Clinical Trials Unit, Diabetes Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester General Hospital, Gwendolen Road, Leicester, LE5 4PW, UK
| | - Arne Ring
- Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, 22-28 Princess Road West, Leicester, LE1 6TP, UK.,Department of Mathematical Statistics and Actuarial Science, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, 9300, South Africa
| | - Nicola Walker
- Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, 22-28 Princess Road West, Leicester, LE1 6TP, UK
| | - Stephen Rogers
- Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, 22-28 Princess Road West, Leicester, LE1 6TP, UK.,Clinical Lead for Applied Health Research Northamptonshire Healthcare Foundation Trust, Berrywood Hospital, Northampton, NN5 6UD, UK
| | - Richard Baker
- Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, 22-28 Princess Road West, Leicester, LE1 6TP, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Aakhus E, Granlund I, Oxman AD, Flottorp SA. Tailoring interventions to implement recommendations for the treatment of elderly patients with depression: a qualitative study. Int J Ment Health Syst 2015; 9:36. [PMID: 26366193 PMCID: PMC4567788 DOI: 10.1186/s13033-015-0027-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/15/2015] [Accepted: 08/31/2015] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND To improve adherence to evidence-based recommendations, it is logical to identify determinants of practice and tailor interventions to address these. We have previously prioritised six recommendations to improve treatment of elderly patients with depression, and identified determinants of adherence to these recommendations. The aim of this article is to describe how we tailored interventions to address the determinants for the implementation of the recommendations. METHODS We drafted an intervention plan, based on the determinants we had identified in a previous study. We conducted six group interviews with representatives of health professionals (GPs and nurses), implementation researchers, quality improvement officers, professional and voluntary organisations and relatives of elderly patients with depression. We informed about the gap between evidence and practice for elderly patients with depression and presented the prioritised determinants that applied to each recommendation. Participants brainstormed individually and then in groups, suggesting interventions to address the determinants. We then presented evidence on the effectiveness of strategies for implementing depression guidelines. We asked the groups to prioritise the suggested interventions considering the perceived impact of determinants and of interventions, the research evidence underlying the interventions, feasibility and cost. We audiotaped and transcribed the interviews and applied a five step framework for our analysis. We created a logic model with links between the determinants, the interventions, and the targeted improvements in adherence. RESULTS Six groups with 29 individuals provided 379 suggestions for interventions. Most suggestions could be fit within the drafted plan, but the groups provided important amendments or additions. We sorted the interventions into six categories: resources for municipalities to develop a collaborative care plan, resources for health professionals, resources for patients and their relatives, outreach visits, educational and web-based tools. Some interventions addressed one determinant, while other interventions addressed several determinants. CONCLUSIONS It was feasible and helpful to use group interviews and combine open and structured approaches to identify interventions that addressed prioritised determinants to adherence to the recommendations. This approach generated a large number of suggested interventions. We had to prioritise to tailor the interventions strategies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eivind Aakhus
- Centre for Old Age Psychiatric Research, Innlandet Hospital Trust, 2312 Ottestad, Norway ; Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, Box 7004 St Olavs plass, 0130 Oslo, Norway
| | - Ingeborg Granlund
- Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, Box 7004 St Olavs plass, 0130 Oslo, Norway
| | - Andrew D Oxman
- Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, Box 7004 St Olavs plass, 0130 Oslo, Norway
| | - Signe A Flottorp
- Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, Box 7004 St Olavs plass, 0130 Oslo, Norway ; The Department of Health Management and Health Economics, University of Oslo, P.O Box 1089, Blindern, 0317 Oslo, Norway
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Blane DN, Macdonald S, Morrison D, O'Donnell CA. Interventions targeted at primary care practitioners to improve the identification and referral of patients with co-morbid obesity: a realist review protocol. Syst Rev 2015; 4:61. [PMID: 25927993 PMCID: PMC4426175 DOI: 10.1186/s13643-015-0046-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/25/2015] [Accepted: 04/14/2015] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Obesity is one of the most significant public health challenges in the developed world. Recent policy has suggested that more can be done in primary care to support adults with obesity. In particular, general practitioners (GPs) and practice nurses (PNs) could improve the identification and referral of adults with obesity to appropriate weight management services. Previous interventions targeted at primary care practitioners in this area have had mixed results, suggesting a more complex interplay between patients, practitioners, and systems. The objectives of this review are (i) to identify the underlying 'programme theory' of interventions targeted at primary care practitioners to improve the identification and referral of adults with obesity and (ii) to explore how and why GPs and PNs identify and refer individuals with obesity, particularly in the context of weight-related co-morbidity. This protocol will explain the rationale for using a realist review approach and outline the key steps in this process. METHODS Realist review is a theory-led approach to knowledge synthesis that provides an explanatory analysis aimed at discerning what works, for whom, in what circumstances, how, and why. In this review, scoping interviews with key stakeholders involved in the planning and delivery of adult weight management services in Scotland helped to inform the identification of formal theories - from psychology, sociology, and implementation science - that will be tested as the review progresses. A comprehensive search strategy is described, including scope for iterative searching. Data analysis is outlined in three stages (describing context-mechanism-outcome configurations, exploring patterns in these configurations, and developing and testing middle-range theories, informed by the formal theories previously identified), culminating in the production of explanatory programme theory that considers individual, interpersonal, and institutional/systems-level components. DISCUSSION This is the first realist review that we are aware of looking at interventions targeted at primary care practitioners to improve the weight management of adults with obesity. Engagement with stakeholders at an early stage is a unique feature of realist review. This shapes the scope of the review, identification of candidate theories and dissemination strategies. The findings of this review will inform policy and future interventions. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION PROSPERO CRD42014009391.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David N Blane
- General Practice and Primary Care, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, 1 Horselethill Road, Glasgow, G12 9LX, UK.
| | - Sara Macdonald
- General Practice and Primary Care, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, 1 Horselethill Road, Glasgow, G12 9LX, UK.
| | - David Morrison
- Public Health, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, 1 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow, G12 8RZ, UK.
| | - Catherine A O'Donnell
- General Practice and Primary Care, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, 1 Horselethill Road, Glasgow, G12 9LX, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Baker R, Camosso‐Stefinovic J, Gillies C, Shaw EJ, Cheater F, Flottorp S, Robertson N, Wensing M, Fiander M, Eccles MP, Godycki‐Cwirko M, van Lieshout J, Jäger C. Tailored interventions to address determinants of practice. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; 2015:CD005470. [PMID: 25923419 PMCID: PMC7271646 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd005470.pub3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 313] [Impact Index Per Article: 34.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/06/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Tailored intervention strategies are frequently recommended among approaches to the implementation of improvement in health professional performance. Attempts to change the behaviour of health professionals may be impeded by a variety of different barriers, obstacles, or factors (which we collectively refer to as determinants of practice). Change may be more likely if implementation strategies are specifically chosen to address these determinants. OBJECTIVES To determine whether tailored intervention strategies are effective in improving professional practice and healthcare outcomes. We compared interventions tailored to address the identified determinants of practice with either no intervention or interventions not tailored to the determinants. SEARCH METHODS We conducted searches of The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, CINAHL, and the British Nursing Index to May 2014. We conducted a final search in December 2014 (in MEDLINE only) for more recently published trials. We conducted searches of the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) in March 2013. We also handsearched two journals. SELECTION CRITERIA Cluster-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions tailored to address prospectively identified determinants of practice, which reported objectively measured professional practice or healthcare outcomes, and where at least one group received an intervention designed to address prospectively identified determinants of practice. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently assessed quality and extracted data. We undertook qualitative and quantitative analyses, the quantitative analysis including two elements: we carried out 1) meta-regression analyses to compare interventions tailored to address identified determinants with either no interventions or an intervention(s) not tailored to the determinants, and 2) heterogeneity analyses to investigate sources of differences in the effectiveness of interventions. These included the effects of: risk of bias, use of a theory when developing the intervention, whether adjustment was made for local factors, and number of domains addressed with the determinants identified. MAIN RESULTS We added nine studies to this review to bring the total number of included studies to 32 comparing an intervention tailored to address identified determinants of practice to no intervention or an intervention(s) not tailored to the determinants. The outcome was implementation of recommended practice, e.g. clinical practice guideline recommendations. Fifteen studies provided enough data to be included in the quantitative analysis. The pooled odds ratio was 1.56 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27 to 1.93, P value < 0.001). The 17 studies not included in the meta-analysis had findings showing variable effectiveness consistent with the findings of the meta-regression. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Despite the increase in the number of new studies identified, our overall finding is similar to that of the previous review. Tailored implementation can be effective, but the effect is variable and tends to be small to moderate. The number of studies remains small and more research is needed, including trials comparing tailored interventions to no or other interventions, but also studies to develop and investigate the components of tailoring (identification of the most important determinants, selecting interventions to address the determinants). Currently available studies have used different methods to identify determinants of practice and different approaches to selecting interventions to address the determinants. It is not yet clear how best to tailor interventions and therefore not clear what the effect of an optimally tailored intervention would be.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Richard Baker
- University of LeicesterDepartment of Health Sciences22‐28 Princess Rd WestLeicesterLeicestershireUKLE1 6TP
| | | | - Clare Gillies
- University of LeicesterUniversity Division of Medicine for the ElderlyThe Glenfield HospitalGroby RoadLeicesterUKLE5 4PW
| | - Elizabeth J Shaw
- National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)Level 1A, City PlazaPiccadilly PlazaManchesterUKM1 4BD
| | - Francine Cheater
- School of Health Sciences, University of East AngliaEdith Cavell BuildingNorwichNorfolkUK
| | - Signe Flottorp
- Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health ServicesBox 7004, St. Olavs plassOsloNorway0130
| | - Noelle Robertson
- Leicester UniversitySchool of Psychology (Clinical Section)104 Regent RoadLeicesterLeicestershireUKLE1 7LT
| | - Michel Wensing
- Radboud University Medical CenterRadboud Institute for Health SciencesPO Box 9101117 KWAZONijmegenNetherlands6500 HB
| | | | - Martin P Eccles
- Newcastle UniversityInstitute of Health and SocietyBadiley Clark BuildingRichardson RoadNewcastle upon TyneUKNE2 4AX
| | - Maciek Godycki‐Cwirko
- Medical University of LodzCentre for Family and Community MedicineKopcindkiego 20LodzPoland90‐153
| | - Jan van Lieshout
- Radboud University Medical CenterScientific Institute for Quality of HealthcareP.O.Box 9101NijmegenNetherlands6500 HB
| | - Cornelia Jäger
- University Hospital of HeidelbergDepartment of General Practice and Health Services ResearchVoßstr. 2, Geb. 37HeidelbergGermany69115
| | | |
Collapse
|
11
|
Huntink E, van Lieshout J, Aakhus E, Baker R, Flottorp S, Godycki-Cwirko M, Jäger C, Kowalczyk A, Szecsenyi J, Wensing M. Stakeholders' contributions to tailored implementation programs: an observational study of group interview methods. Implement Sci 2014; 9:185. [PMID: 25479618 PMCID: PMC4268850 DOI: 10.1186/s13012-014-0185-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/10/2014] [Accepted: 11/27/2014] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Tailored strategies to implement evidence-based practice can be generated in several ways. In this study, we explored the usefulness of group interviews for generating these strategies, focused on improving healthcare for patients with chronic diseases. Methods Participants included at least four categories of stakeholders (researchers, quality officers, health professionals, and external stakeholders) in five countries. Interviews comprised brainstorming followed by a structured interview and focused on different chronic conditions in each country. We compared the numbers and types of strategies between stakeholder categories and between interview phases. We also determined which strategies were actually used in tailored intervention programs. Results In total, 127 individuals participated in 25 group interviews across five countries. Brainstorming generated 8 to 120 strategies per group; structured interviews added 0 to 55 strategies. Healthcare professionals and researchers provided the largest numbers of strategies. The type of strategies for improving healthcare practice did not differ systematically between stakeholder groups in four of the five countries. In three out of five countries, all components of the chosen intervention programs were mentioned by the group of researchers. Conclusions Group interviews with different stakeholder categories produced many strategies for tailored implementation of evidence-based practice, of which the content was largely similar across stakeholder categories. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-014-0185-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elke Huntink
- Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
| | - Jan van Lieshout
- Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
| | - Eivind Aakhus
- Research Centre for Old Age Psychiatry, Innlandet Hospital Trust, 2312, Ottestad, Norway. .,Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, P.O. Box 7004, St. Olavs plass, N-0130, Oslo, Norway.
| | - Richard Baker
- University of Leicester, 22-28 Princess Road West, Leicester, LE1 6TP, UK.
| | - Signe Flottorp
- Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, P.O. Box 7004, St. Olavs plass, N-0130, Oslo, Norway. .,University of Oslo, Postboks 1089 Blindern, 0317, Oslo, Norway.
| | | | - Cornelia Jäger
- Heidelberg University Hospital, Voßstraße 2, D-69115, Heidelberg, Germany.
| | - Anna Kowalczyk
- Centre for Family and Community Medicine, Medical University of Lodz, ul. Kopcinskiego 20, 90-153, Lodz, Poland.
| | - Joachim Szecsenyi
- Heidelberg University Hospital, Voßstraße 2, D-69115, Heidelberg, Germany.
| | - Michel Wensing
- Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Aakhus E, Oxman AD, Flottorp SA. Determinants of adherence to recommendations for depressed elderly patients in primary care: a multi-methods study. Scand J Prim Health Care 2014; 32:170-9. [PMID: 25431340 PMCID: PMC4278390 DOI: 10.3109/02813432.2014.984961] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE It is logical that tailoring implementation strategies to address identified determinants of adherence to clinical practice guidelines should improve adherence. This study aimed to identify and prioritize determinants of adherence to six recommendations for elderly patients with depression. DESIGN AND SETTING Group and individual interviews and a survey were conducted in Norway. METHOD Individual and group interviews with healthcare professionals and patients, and a mailed survey of healthcare professionals. A generic checklist of determinants of practice was used to categorize suggested determinants. PARTICIPANTS Physicians and nurses from primary and specialist care, psychologists, researchers, and patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Determinants of adherence to recommendations for depressed elderly patients in primary care. RESULTS A total of 352 determinants were identified, of which 99 were prioritized. The most frequently identified factors had to do with dissemination of guidelines, general practitioners' time constraints, the low prioritization of elderly patients with depression, and the patients' or relatives' wish for medication. Approximately three-quarters of the determinants were from three of the seven domains in the generic checklist: individual healthcare professional factors, patient factors, and incentives and resources. The survey did not provide useful information due to a low response rate and a lack of responses to open-ended questions. IMPLICATIONS The list of prioritized determinants can inform the design of interventions to implement recommendations for elderly patients with depression. The importance of the determinants that were identified may vary across communities, practices. and patients. Interventions that address important determinants are necessary to improve practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eivind Aakhus
- Research Centre for Old Age Psychiatry, Innlandet Hospital Trust, Ottestad, Norway
- Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, Oslo, Norway
| | - Andrew D. Oxman
- Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, Oslo, Norway
| | - Signe A. Flottorp
- Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, Oslo, Norway
- Department of Health Management and Health Economics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Krause J, Van Lieshout J, Klomp R, Huntink E, Aakhus E, Flottorp S, Jaeger C, Steinhaeuser J, Godycki-Cwirko M, Kowalczyk A, Agarwal S, Wensing M, Baker R. Identifying determinants of care for tailoring implementation in chronic diseases: an evaluation of different methods. Implement Sci 2014; 9:102. [PMID: 25112492 PMCID: PMC4243773 DOI: 10.1186/s13012-014-0102-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 103] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/06/2014] [Accepted: 07/27/2014] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The tailoring of implementation interventions includes the identification of the determinants of, or barriers to, healthcare practice. Different methods for identifying determinants have been used in implementation projects, but which methods are most appropriate to use is unknown. METHODS The study was undertaken in five European countries, recommendations for a different chronic condition being addressed in each country: Germany (polypharmacy in multimorbid patients); the Netherlands (cardiovascular risk management); Norway (depression in the elderly); Poland (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease--COPD); and the United Kingdom (UK) (obesity). Using samples of professionals and patients in each country, three methods were compared directly: brainstorming amongst health professionals, interviews of health professionals, and interviews of patients. The additional value of discussion structured through reference to a checklist of determinants in addition to brainstorming, and determinants identified by open questions in a questionnaire survey, were investigated separately. The questionnaire, which included closed questions derived from a checklist of determinants, was administered to samples of health professionals in each country. Determinants were classified according to whether it was likely that they would inform the design of an implementation intervention (defined as plausibly important determinants). RESULTS A total of 601 determinants judged to be plausibly important were identified. An additional 609 determinants were judged to be unlikely to inform an implementation intervention, and were classified as not plausibly important. Brainstorming identified 194 of the plausibly important determinants, health professional interviews 152, patient interviews 63, and open questions 48. Structured group discussion identified 144 plausibly important determinants in addition to those already identified by brainstorming. CONCLUSIONS Systematic methods can lead to the identification of large numbers of determinants. Tailoring will usually include a process to decide, from all the determinants that are identified, those to be addressed by implementation interventions. There is no best buy of methods to identify determinants, and a combination should be used, depending on the topic and setting. Brainstorming is a simple, low cost method that could be relevant to many tailored implementation projects.
Collapse
|
14
|
Jäger C, Freund T, Steinhäuser J, Aakhus E, Flottorp S, Godycki-Cwirko M, van Lieshout J, Krause J, Szecsenyi J, Wensing M. Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases (TICD): a protocol for process evaluation in cluster randomized controlled trials in five European countries. Trials 2014; 15:87. [PMID: 24655439 PMCID: PMC3994491 DOI: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-87] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/07/2013] [Accepted: 12/20/2013] [Indexed: 11/11/2022] Open
Abstract
Background In the ‘Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases (TICD)’ project, five tailored implementation programs to improve healthcare delivery in different chronic conditions have been developed. These programs will be evaluated in distinct cluster-randomized controlled trials. This protocol describes the process evaluation across these trials, which aims to identify determinants of change in chronic illness care, to examine the validity of the tailoring methods that were applied, and to analyze the association of implementation activities and the effectiveness of the program. Methods A multilevel approach was used to develop five tailored implementation interventions. In order to guide the process evaluation in five distinct trials, the study protocols for the cluster randomized trials and the related process evaluations were developed simultaneously and iteratively. Results The process evaluation comprises three main components: a structured survey with health professionals in the trials, semi-structured interviews with a purposeful sample of this study population, and standardized documentation of organizational practice characteristics. Norway will only conduct the qualitative part of the analysis because the survey and documentation of practice characteristics are considered to be not feasible. The evaluation is guided by ‘logic models’ of the implementation programs: frameworks that specify the linkages between the strategies used, the determinants addressed by tailoring, and the anticipated outcomes. Standardization of measures across trials is sought to facilitate analysis of aggregated data from the trials. Conclusions This process evaluation will need to find a balance between standardization of methods across trials and the tailoring of measures to the specificities of each trial.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cornelia Jäger
- Department of General Practice and Health Services Research, University Hospital of Heidelberg, Voßstraße 2, Geb, 37, 69115 Heidelberg, Germany.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|