Screening and prevention in Swiss primary care: a systematic review

Factors for the integration of prevention in primary care: an overview of reviews

BACKGROUND

The global burden of non-communicable diseases is increasing and the need for prevention is huge. Policies have yet to produce results and prevention indicators remain low. Primary care (PC) represents an opportunity to optimise the practice of prevention, but GPs are coming up against barriers that are holding back their prevention practices.

AIM

To identify the barriers and facilitators for the implementation of routine prevention practices in PC.

DESIGN & SETTING

This study is an international overview of reviews focusing on the integration of prevention in PC settings.

METHOD

The search was conducted in July 2022 using MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Included reviews are systematic reviews or scoping reviews adopting a systematic approach.

RESULTS

The 35 reviews included identify multiple barriers and facilitators related to the integration of prevention in PC. These factors are heterogeneous with regard to their source (the patient, the professional, and the health system) and their level of action (individual, organisational, or contextual). The results show the need to organise PC at the professional level (for example, in training), at the local level (for example, the information system), and at the political level (for example, the unclear definition of the role of professionals).

CONCLUSION

The factors influencing the integration of prevention in PC are multiple and act at different levels (individual, organisational, and health-system level). Organisation factors play a major role and seem to be a means of overcoming the difficulties encountered by healthcare professionals in developing preventive practices.

Attitudes Towards Evidence-Based Practice of Professionals Working with Children and Adolescents with Autism Spectrum Disorder in Bangladesh

Like in many lower-middle-income countries (LMIC), progress in implementing evidence-based practices (EBPs) for children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) has been slow in Bangladesh. This cross-sectional study examined professionals' attitudes towards evidence-based practice (EBP) for children and adolescents with ASD and explored how providers' demographic factors are related to attitudes to and adoption of EBPs in Bangladesh. The sample consisted of 150 mental health professionals and special teachers from the urban area of Dhaka. Attitudes were assessed by the Evidence-based Practice Attitude Scale-36. Findings indicated that professionals have favorable attitudes towards EBP. Their attitudes varied depending on service settings (public clinical, private clinical, and special school) and caseload per year. Professionals who work in private and special school settings claimed to be more willing to adopt an EBP when required and perceived a higher fit of EBPs and their work than those in public clinical settings. The number of different EBPs used also differed by service setting. Every type of intervention (except medication) was used by more professionals in special schools than in private and public clinical settings. Many professionals reported few barriers to the implementation of EBPs. These findings indicate conditions that are often conducive to the implementation of EBPs. However, these results do not reflect the situation in rural areas, in which poverty is more widespread and the number of specialized professionals is low.

Individual, health system, and contextual barriers and facilitators for the implementation of clinical practice guidelines: a systematic metareview

Introduction

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are designed to improve the quality of care and reduce unjustified individual variation in clinical practice. Knowledge of the barriers and facilitators that influence the implementation of the CPG recommendations is the first step in creating strategies to improve health outcomes. The present systematic meta-review sought to explore the barriers and facilitators for the implementation of CPGs.

Methods

A search was conducted in the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Health System Evidence and International Guideline Library (G-I-N) databases. Systematic reviews of qualitative, quantitative or mixed-methods studies that identified barriers or facilitators for the implementation of CPGs were included. The selection of the title and abstract, the evaluation of the full text, extraction of the data and the quality assessment were carried out by two independent reviewers. To summarise the evidence, we grouped the barriers and facilitators according to the following contexts: political and social, health organisational system, guidelines, health professionals and patients.

Results

Overall, 25 systematic reviews were selected. The relevant barriers in the social-political context were the absence of a leader, difficulties with teamwork and a lack of agreement with colleagues. Relevant barriers in the health system were a lack of time, financial problems and a lack of specialised personnel. Barriers of the CPGs included a lack of clarity and a lack of credibility in the evidence. Regarding the health professional, a lack of knowledge about the CPG and confidence in oneself were relevant. Regarding patients, a negative attitude towards implementation, a lack of knowledge about the CPG and sociocultural beliefs played a role. Some of the most frequent facilitators were consistent leadership, commitment of the members of the team, administrative support of the institution, existence of multidisciplinary teams, application of technology to improve the practice and education regarding the guidelines.

Conclusions

The barriers and facilitators described in this review are factors that influence the implementation of evidence in clinical practice. Knowledge of these factors should contribute to the development of a theoretical basis for the creation of CPG implementation strategies to improve professional practice and health outcomes for patients.

Implementing dementia risk reduction in primary care: a preliminary conceptual model based on a scoping review of practitioners' views

Primary care practitioners (PCPs) do not routinely promote dementia risk reduction. The purpose of this study was to map the published literature on the views of PCPs about dementia risk reduction, in order to identify implementation constructs and strategies crucial to the development of an implementation intervention to support dementia risk reduction in primary care. We undertook a scoping review of the PCPs' views about promoting brain health for reducing dementia risk. We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Embase for English-language articles published between 1995 and December 2017. We then applied the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and matched Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change to the scoping review findings in order to develop a preliminary implementation model. Eight articles reported views of PCPs about dementia prevention. Study findings were mapped to 5 of the 39 CFIR constructs: (i) knowledge and beliefs about dementia risk reduction, (ii) evidence strength and quality, (iii) relative priority, (iv) available resources, and (v) external policy and incentives. The findings suggest implementation strategies to consider in our preliminary model include (i) educational meetings, (ii) identifying and preparing champions, (iii) conducting local consensus discussions, (iv) altering incentive structures, and (v) capturing and sharing local knowledge. There have been few studies about the views of PCPs about dementia risk reduction. Implementation in the primary care setting is fundamental to early identification of risk and supporting preventive practices, but it needs to focus on more than just education for PCPs. We need more up-to-date and in-depth data on the views of PCPs about dementia risk reduction and context-specific analyses of implementation needs. Further research into effective primary care interventions to reduce dementia risk is expected to support implementation efforts.

Patients' and General Practitioners' Views About Preventive Care in Family Medicine in Switzerland: A Cross-sectional Study

Objectives

The aim of this study was to describe general practitioners (GPs)’ opinions and practices of preventive care and patients’ opinions, attitudes, and behaviors towards prevention.

Methods

The data stemmed from a cross-sectional national survey on prevention conducted in Switzerland from 2015 to 2016. In total, 170 randomly drawn GPs and 1154 of their patients participated. The GPs answered an online questionnaire and the patients answered a questionnaire administrated by fieldworkers present at their practices.

Results

Both patients and GPs agreed that delivering preventive care is the dedicated role of a GP. It appeared that beyond classical topics of prevention such as cardiovascular risk factors, other prevention areas (e.g., cannabis consumption, immunization, occupational risks) were scarcely covered by GPs and reported as little-known by patients. In addition, GPs seemed to use a selective approach to prevention, responding to the clinical context, rather than a systematic approach to health promotion. The results also highlight possibilities to improve prevention in family medicine through options such as more supportive tools and public advertising, more time and more delegated tasks and, finally, a more recognized role.

Conclusions

Despite an unfavorable context of prevention within the healthcare system, preventive care in family medicine is reasonably good in Switzerland. However, some limitations appear regarding the topics and the circumstances of preventive care delivery. A global effort is needed to implement necessary changes, and the responsibility should be broadened to other stakeholders.

A structural equation model of the family physicians attitude towards their role in prevention: a cross-sectional study in Switzerland

BACKGROUND

In contrast to many studies exploring barriers to preventive care in family medicine, there is less quantitative research regarding the self-perceived role of family physicians (FPs) in prevention and its predictive factors. Moreover, the existing studies considered this attitude as a homogeneous entity. The objective of this study is firstly, to characterize FPs' attitudes towards prevention taking into account nine different prevention themes, and secondly, to explore the factors that could be predictive of this attitude.

METHODS

The data stem from a cross-sectional national survey on prevention we conducted in Switzerland from 2015 to 2016 (170 physicians randomly drawn, online questionnaire). We first performed a confirmatory factor analysis to define a homogeneous latent variable regarding physicians' attitude towards prevention, then, a structural equation modeling to identify potential predictors.

RESULTS

The FP' attitude towards their role in preventive care was homogeneously positive whatever the topic (smoking, drinking dietary habits, physical activities, and more generally, cardiovascular risk factors) except for occupational risks and cannabis consumption. A feeling of good effectiveness was a positive predictor of this positive attitude while seniority, the lack of reimbursement and being a physician from the German-speaking area were negative predictors.

CONCLUSION

The FP' attitude about their role in prevention is homogeneous concerning the 'classical' topics of prevention, whereas they still under-recognize certain topics as important fields for prevention. To change this situation, we probably need a global effort to introduce other ways of thinking about prevention, including not only FP but also all stakeholders.

Overview of preventive practices provided by primary care physicians: A cross-sectional study in Switzerland and France

BACKGROUND

A range of preventive practices are recommended to reduce the burden of chronic diseases. The aim of our study was to describe the preventive practices of French-speaking primary care physicians.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was conducted in 2015 in a randomly selected sample of 1100 primary care physicians (700 in Switzerland, 400 in France). The physicians were asked how often they performed the following recommended preventive practices: blood pressure, weight and height measurements, screening for dyslipidemia, screening for alcohol use and brief intervention, screening for smoking (and brief advice for smokers), colon and prostate cancer screening, and influenza immunization. Response options on the five points Likert scale were never, rarely, sometimes, often, always. The physicians were considered to be performing the preventive practice regularly if they declared performing it often or always.

RESULTS

518 participants (47%) returned the questionnaire. The most commonly reported preventive practices were: blood pressure measurement (99%), screening for smoking (95%) and brief advice for smokers (95%). The least frequently reported practices were annual influenza immunization for at-risk patients <65 years (37%), height measurement (53%), screening for excessive alcohol use (60%) and brief advice for at-risk drinkers (67%). All other practices were reported by 70 to 90% of participants.

CONCLUSION

Whereas some preventive practices now appear to be part of primary care routine, others were not applied by a large proportion of primary care physicians in our study. Further studies should explore whether these findings are related to miss-knowledge of common guidelines, or other implementation barriers in this primary care context.

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.

Management of LBP at primary care level in South Africa: up to standards?

BACKGROUND

Primary Health Care (PHC) is well suited for management of low back pain (LBP). Prevalence of (chronic) LBP is suspected to be high among visitors of the South African primary care centers, but currently no information exists on prevalence or guideline adherence.

OBJECTIVES

To establish if treatment received for LBP in public PHC in the Cape Town area compares with international evidence based guidelines.

METHODS

Cluster randomization determined the 8 community health centres where the study took place. A measurement tool was developed and validated for this population. Descriptive analysis and logistic regression analytical techniques were applied.

RESULTS

489 participants (mean age: 44.8) were included in this study. Lifetime prevalence was 73.2% and 26.3% suffered from chronic low back pain (CLBP) . Pain medication was the only form of treatment received by 90% of the sample. Interventions received seemed to be unrelated to type of LBP (acute, sub acute and chronic). Referral to physiotherapy, education and advice to stay active were rarely done. Participants expressed low satisfaction with treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Current management of LBP at PHC level appears to be ineffective and not conform guidelines. Further South African research should focus on barriers as well as measures to be taken for implementation of LBP guidelines.

Staff perceptions of addressing lifestyle in primary health care: a qualitative evaluation 2 years after the introduction of a lifestyle intervention tool

BACKGROUND

Preventive services and health promotion in terms of lifestyle counselling provided through primary health care (PHC) has the potential to reduce morbidity and mortality in the population. Health professionals in general are positive about and willing to develop a health-promoting and/or preventive role. A number of obstacles hindering PHC staff from addressing lifestyle issues have been identified, and one facilitator is the use of modern technology. When a computer-based tool for lifestyle intervention (CLT) was introduced at a number of PHC units in Sweden, this provided an opportunity to study staff perspectives on the subject. The aim of this study was to explore PHC staff's perceptions of handling lifestyle issues, including the consultation situation as well as the perceived usefulness of the CLT.

METHODS

A qualitative study was conducted after the CLT had been in operation for 2 years. Six focus group interviews, one at each participating unit, including a total of 30 staff members with different professions participated. The interviews were designed to capture perceptions of addressing lifestyle issues, and of using the CLT. Interview data were analysed using manifest content analysis.

RESULTS

Two main themes emerged from the interviews: a challenging task and confidence in handling lifestyle issues. The first theme covered the categories responsibilities and emotions, and the second theme covered the categories first contact, existing tools, and role of the CLT. Staff at the units showed commitment to health promotion/prevention, and saw that patients, caregivers, managers and politicians all have responsibilities regarding the issue. They expressed confidence in handling lifestyle-related conditions, but to a lesser extent had routines for general screening of lifestyle habits, and found addressing alcohol the most problematic issue. The CLT, intended to facilitate screening, was viewed as a complement, but was not considered an important tool for health promotion/prevention.

CONCLUSION

Additional resources, for example in terms of manpower, may help to build the structures necessary for the health promotion/prevention task. Committed leaders could enhance the engagement among staff. Cooperation in multi-professional teams seems to be important, and methods or tools perceived by staff as compatible have a potential to be successfully implemented. Economic incentives rewarding quantity rather than quality appear to be frustrating to PHC staff.