Development of a theory and evidence-based program to promote community treatment of fevers in children under five in a rural district in Southern Ghana: An intervention mapping approach

Development of an Implementation Strategy Tailored to Deliver Evidence-Based and Person-Centred Nursing Care for Patients with Community-Acquired Pneumonia: An Intervention Mapping Approach

Community-acquired pneumonia is a serious public health problem, and more so in older patients, leading to high morbidity and mortality. However, this problem can be reduced by optimising in-hospital nursing care. Accordingly, this study describes a systematic process of designing and developing a tailored theory- and research-based implementation strategy that supports registered nurses (RNs) in delivering evidence-based and person-centred care for this patient population in a hospital setting. The implementation strategy was developed by completing the six steps of the Intervention Mapping framework: (1) developing a logic model of the problem and (2) a logic model of change by defining performance and change objectives, (3) designing implementation strategy interventions by selecting theory-based change methods, (4) planning the interventions and producing materials through a co-design approach, (5) developing a structured plan for adoption, maintenance and implementation and (6) developing an evaluation plan. This method can serve as a guide to (1) target behavioural and environmental barriers hindering the delivery of nursing care in local clinical practice, (2) support evidence uptake, (3) support RNs in the delivery of nursing care according to individual patient needs and thereby (4) optimise health-related patient outcomes.

Effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership on health services planning, delivery and evaluation

BACKGROUND

Health services have traditionally been developed to focus on specific diseases or medical specialties. Involving consumers as partners in planning, delivering and evaluating health services may lead to services that are person-centred and so better able to meet the needs of and provide care for individuals. Globally, governments recommend consumer involvement in healthcare decision-making at the systems level, as a strategy for promoting person-centred health services. However, the effects of this 'working in partnership' approach to healthcare decision-making are unclear. Working in partnership is defined here as collaborative relationships between at least one consumer and health provider, meeting jointly and regularly in formal group formats, to equally contribute to and collaborate on health service-related decision-making in real time. In this review, the terms 'consumer' and 'health provider' refer to partnership participants, and 'health service user' and 'health service provider' refer to trial participants. This review of effects of partnership interventions was undertaken concurrently with a Cochrane Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES) entitled Consumers and health providers working in partnership for the promotion of person-centred health services: a co-produced qualitative evidence synthesis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership, as an intervention to promote person-centred health services.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases from 2000 to April 2019; PROQUEST Dissertations and Theses Global from 2016 to April 2019; and grey literature and online trial registries from 2000 until September 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster-RCTs of 'working in partnership' interventions meeting these three criteria: both consumer and provider participants meet; they meet jointly and regularly in formal group formats; and they make actual decisions that relate to the person-centredness of health service(s).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened most titles and abstracts. One review author screened a subset of titles and abstracts (i.e. those identified through clinical trials registries searches, those classified by the Cochrane RCT Classifier as unlikely to be an RCT, and those identified through other sources). Two review authors independently screened all full texts of potentially eligible articles for inclusion. In case of disagreement, they consulted a third review author to reach consensus. One review author extracted data and assessed risk of bias for all included studies and a second review author independently cross-checked all data and assessments. Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion, or by consulting a third review author to reach consensus. Meta-analysis was not possible due to the small number of included trials and their heterogeneity; we synthesised results descriptively by comparison and outcome. We reported the following outcomes in GRADE 'Summary of findings' tables: health service alterations; the degree to which changed service reflects health service user priorities; health service users' ratings of health service performance; health service users' health service utilisation patterns; resources associated with the decision-making process; resources associated with implementing decisions; and adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five trials (one RCT and four cluster-RCTs), with 16,257 health service users and more than 469 health service providers as trial participants. For two trials, the aims of the partnerships were to directly improve the person-centredness of health services (via health service planning, and discharge co-ordination). In the remaining trials, the aims were indirect (training first-year medical doctors on patient safety) or broader in focus (which could include person-centredness of health services that targeted the public/community, households or health service delivery to improve maternal and neonatal mortality). Three trials were conducted in high income-countries, one was in a middle-income country and one was in a low-income country. Two studies evaluated working in partnership interventions, compared to usual practice without partnership (Comparison 1); and three studies evaluated working in partnership as part of a multi-component intervention, compared to the same intervention without partnership (Comparison 2). No studies evaluated one form of working in partnership compared to another (Comparison 3). The effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership compared to usual practice without partnership are uncertain: only one of the two studies that assessed this comparison measured health service alteration outcomes, and data were not usable, as only intervention group data were reported. Additionally, none of the included studies evaluating this comparison measured the other primary or secondary outcomes we sought for the 'Summary of findings' table. We are also unsure about the effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership as part of a multi-component intervention compared to the same intervention without partnership. Very low-certainty evidence indicated there may be little or no difference on health service alterations or health service user health service performance ratings (two studies); or on health service user health service utilisation patterns and adverse events (one study each). No studies evaluating this comparison reported the degree to which health service alterations reflect health service user priorities, or resource use. Overall, our confidence in the findings about the effects of working in partnership interventions was very low due to indirectness, imprecision and publication bias, and serious concerns about risk of selection bias; performance bias, detection bias and reporting bias in most studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The effects of consumers and providers working in partnership as an intervention, or as part of a multi-component intervention, are uncertain, due to a lack of high-quality evidence and/or due to a lack of studies. Further well-designed RCTs with a clear focus on assessing outcomes directly related to partnerships for patient-centred health services are needed in this area, which may also benefit from mixed-methods and qualitative research to build the evidence base.

Why? What? How? Using an Intervention Mapping approach to develop a personalised intervention to improve adherence to photoprotection in patients with Xeroderma Pigmentosum

Background: Intervention Mapping (IM) is a systematic approach for developing theory-based interventions across a variety of contexts and settings. This paper describes the development of a complex intervention designed to reduce the dose of ultraviolet radiation (UVR) reaching the face of adults with Xeroderma Pigmentosum (XP), by improving photoprotection. XP is a genetic condition that without extreme UVR photoprotection, leads to high risk of developing skin cancer.

Methods: The IM protocol of 6 steps was applied, involving comprehensive mixed-methods formative research. Key stakeholders (XP clinical staff and Patient and Public Involvement Panel), were instrumental at every step. Behaviour change methods were informed by the IM taxonomy, therapeutic approaches (e.g. ACT, CBT) and coded according to the taxonomy of behaviour change techniques (version 1).

Results: We designed a personalised modular intervention to target psychosocial determinants of photoprotective activities that influence the amount of UVR reaching the face. Content was developed to target determinants of motivation to protect and factors preventing the enactment of behaviours. Participants received personalised content addressing determinants/barriers most relevant to them, as well as core ‘behaviour-change’ material, considered important for all (e.g. SMART goals). Core and personalised content was delivered via 7 one-to-one sessions with a trained facilitator using a manual and purpose designed materials: Magazine; text messages; sunscreen application video; goal-setting tools (e.g. UVR dial and face protection guide); activity sheets. Novel features included use of ACT-based values to enhance intrinsic motivation, targeting of emotional barriers to photoprotection, addressing appearance concerns and facilitating habit formation.

Conclusion: IM was an effective approach for complex intervention design. The structure (e.g. use of matrices) tethered the intervention tightly to theory and evidence-based approaches. The significant amount of time required needs to be considered and may hinder translation of IM into clinical and non-academic settings.

Effects of scaling up various community-level interventions on child mortality in Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda and Tanzania: a modeling study

BACKGROUND

Improving child health remains one of the most significant health challenges in sub-Saharan Africa, a region that accounts for half of the global burden of under-five mortality despite having approximately 13% of the world population and 25% of births globally. Improving access to evidence-based community-level interventions has increasingly been advocated to contribute to reducing child mortality and, thus, help low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) achieve the child health related Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) target. Nevertheless, the coverage of community-level interventions remains suboptimal. In this study, we estimated the potential impact of scaling up various community-level interventions on child mortality in five East African Community (EAC) countries (i.e., Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda and the United Republic of Tanzania).

METHODS

We identified ten preventive and curative community-level interventions that have been reported to reduce child mortality: Breastfeeding promotion, complementary feeding, vitamin A supplementation, Zinc for treatment of diarrhea, hand washing with soap, hygienic disposal of children's stools, oral rehydration solution (ORS), oral antibiotics for treatment of pneumonia, treatment for moderate acute malnutrition (MAM), and prevention of malaria using insecticide-treated nets and indoor residual spraying (ITN/IRS). Using the Lives Saved Tool, we modeled the impact on child mortality of scaling up these 10 interventions from baseline coverage (2016) to ideal coverage (99%) by 2030 (ideal scale-up scenario) relative to business as usual (BAU) scenario (forecasted coverage based on prior coverage trends). Our outcome measures include number of child deaths prevented.

RESULTS

Compared to BAU scenario, ideal scale-up of the 10 interventions could prevent approximately 74,200 (sensitivity bounds 59,068-88,611) child deaths by 2030 including 10,100 (8210-11,870) deaths in Burundi, 10,300 (7831-12,619) deaths in Kenya, 4350 (3678-4958) deaths in Rwanda, 20,600 (16049-25,162) deaths in Uganda, and 28,900 (23300-34,002) deaths in the United Republic of Tanzania. The top four interventions (oral antibiotics for pneumonia, ORS, hand washing with soap, and treatment for MAM) account for over 75.0% of all deaths prevented in each EAC country: 78.4% in Burundi, 76.0% in Kenya, 81.8% in Rwanda, 91.0% in Uganda and 88.5% in the United Republic of Tanzania.

CONCLUSIONS

Scaling up interventions that can be delivered at community level by community health workers could contribute to substantial reduction of child mortality in EAC and could help the EAC region achieve child health-related SDG target. Our findings suggest that the top four community-level interventions could account for more than three-quarters of all deaths prevented across EAC countries. Going forward, costs of scaling up each intervention will be estimated to guide policy decisions including health resource allocations in EAC countries.