Impact of CONSORT extension for cluster randomised trials on quality of reporting and study methodology : review of random sample of 300 trials, 2000-8

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Practice Feedback Interventions: 15 Suggestions for Optimizing Effectiveness

Electronic practice data are increasingly being used to provide feedback to encourage practice improvement. However, evidence suggests that despite decades of experience, the effects of such interventions vary greatly and are not improving over time. Guidance on providing more effective feedback does exist, but it is distributed across a wide range of disciplines and theoretical perspectives. Through expert interviews; systematic reviews; and experience with providing, evaluating, and receiving practice feedback, 15 suggestions that are believed to be associated with effective feedback interventions have been identified. These suggestions are intended to provide practical guidance to quality improvement professionals, information technology developers, educators, administrators, and practitioners who receive such interventions. Designing interventions with these suggestions in mind should improve their effect, and studying the mechanisms underlying these suggestions will advance a stagnant literature

Clinical Performance Feedback Intervention Theory (CP-FIT): a new theory for designing, implementing, and evaluating feedback in health care based on a systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative research

Background: Providing health professionals with quantitative summaries of their clinical performance when treating specific groups of patients (“feedback”) is a widely used quality improvement strategy, yet systematic reviews show it has varying success. Theory could help explain what factors influence feedback success, and guide approaches to enhance effectiveness. However, existing theories lack comprehensiveness and specificity to health care. To address this problem, we conducted the first systematic review and synthesis of qualitative evaluations of feedback interventions, using findings to develop a comprehensive new health care-specific feedback theory. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Google Scholar from inception until 2016 inclusive. Data were synthesised by coding individual papers, building on pre-existing theories to formulate hypotheses, iteratively testing and improving hypotheses, assessing confidence in hypotheses using the GRADE-CERQual method, and summarising high-confidence hypotheses into a set of propositions. Results: We synthesised 65 papers evaluating 73 feedback interventions from countries spanning five continents. From our synthesis we developed Clinical Performance Feedback Intervention Theory (CP-FIT), which builds on 30 pre-existing theories and has 42 high-confidence hypotheses. CP-FIT states that effective feedback works in a cycle of sequential processes; it becomes less effective if any individual process fails, thus halting progress round the cycle. Feedback’s success is influenced by several factors operating via a set of common explanatory mechanisms: the feedback method used, health professional receiving feedback, and context in which feedback takes place. CP-FIT summarises these effects in three propositions: (1) health care professionals and organisations have a finite capacity to engage with feedback, (2) these parties have strong beliefs regarding how patient care should be provided that influence their interactions with feedback, and (3) feedback that directly supports clinical behaviours is most effective. Conclusions: This is the first qualitative meta-synthesis of feedback interventions, and the first comprehensive theory of feedback designed specifically for health care. Our findings contribute new knowledge about how feedback works and factors that influence its effectiveness. Internationally, practitioners, researchers, and policy-makers can use CP-FIT to design, implement, and evaluate feedback. Doing so could improve care for large numbers of patients, reduce opportunity costs, and improve returns on financial investments

Reporting and design elements of audit and feedback interventions: a secondary review

BACKGROUND: Audit and feedback (A&F) is a frequently used intervention aiming to support implementation of research evidence into clinical practice with positive, yet variable, effects. Our understanding of effective A&F has been limited by poor reporting and intervention heterogeneity. Our objective was to describe the extent of these issues. METHODS: Using a secondary review of A&F interventions and a consensus-based process to identify modifiable A&F elements, we examined intervention descriptions in 140 trials of A&F to quantify reporting limitations and describe the interventions. RESULTS: We identified 17 modifiable A&F intervention elements; 14 were examined to quantify reporting limitations and all 17 were used to describe the interventions. Clear reporting of the elements ranged from 56% to 97% with a median of 89%. There was considerable variation in A&F interventions with 51% for individual providers only, 92% targeting behaviour change and 79% targeting processes of care, 64% performed by the provider group and 81% reporting aggregate patient data. CONCLUSIONS: Our process identified 17 A&F design elements, demonstrated gaps in reporting and helped understand the degree of variation in A&F interventions

Effective Feedback to Improve Primary Care Prescribing Safety (EFIPPS) a pragmatic three-arm cluster randomised trial:designing the intervention (ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT01602705)

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Point-of-care testing for disasters: needs assessment, strategic planning, and future design.

Objective evidence-based national surveys serve as a first step in identifying suitable point-of-care device designs, effective test clusters, and environmental operating conditions. Preliminary survey results show the need for point-of-care testing (POCT) devices using test clusters that specifically detect pathogens found in disaster scenarios. Hurricane Katrina, the tsunami in southeast Asia, and the current influenza pandemic (H1N1, "swine flu") vividly illustrate lack of national and global preparedness. Gap analysis of current POCT devices versus survey results reveals how POCT needs can be fulfilled. Future thinking will help avoid the worst consequences of disasters on the horizon, such as extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis and pandemic influenzas. A global effort must be made to improve POC technologies to rapidly diagnose and treat patients to improve triaging, on-site decision making, and, ultimately, economic and medical outcomes

No more 'business as usual' with audit and feedback interventions: towards an agenda for a reinvigorated intervention

Background: Audit and feedback interventions in healthcare have been found to be effective, but there has been little progress with respect to understanding their mechanisms of action or identifying their key ‘active ingredients.’ Discussion: Given the increasing use of audit and feedback to improve quality of care, it is imperative to focus further research on understanding how and when it works best. In this paper, we argue that continuing the ‘business as usual’ approach to evaluating two-arm trials of audit and feedback interventions against usual care for common problems and settings is unlikely to contribute new generalizable findings. Future audit and feedback trials should incorporate evidence- and theory-based best practices, and address known gaps in the literature. Summary: We offer an agenda for high-priority research topics for implementation researchers that focuses on reviewing best practices for designing audit and feedback interventions to optimize effectiveness

Theories of behaviour change synthesised into a set of theoretical groupings: Introducing a thematic series on the Theoretical Domains Framework

Behaviour change is key to increasing the uptake of evidence into healthcare practice. Designing behaviour-change interventions first requires problem analysis, ideally informed by theory. Yet the large number of partly overlapping theories of behaviour makes it difficult to select the most appropriate theory. The need for an overarching theoretical framework of behaviour change was addressed in research in which 128 explanatory constructs from 33 theories of behaviour were identified and grouped. The resulting Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) appears to be a helpful basis for investigating implementation problems. Research groups in several countries have conducted TDF-based studies. It seems timely to bring together the experience of these teams in a thematic series to demonstrate further applications and to report key developments. This overview article describes the TDF, provides a brief critique of the framework, and introduces this thematic series. In a brief review to assess the extent of TDF-based research, we identified 133 papers that cite the framework. Of these, 17 used the TDF as the basis for empirical studies to explore health professionals’ behaviour. The identified papers provide evidence of the impact of the TDF on implementation research. Two major strengths of the framework are its theoretical coverage and its capacity to elicit beliefs that could signify key mediators of behaviour change. The TDF provides a useful conceptual basis for assessing implementation problems, designing interventions to enhance healthcare practice, and understanding behaviour-change processes. We discuss limitations and research challenges and introduce papers in this series

Barriers and enablers to diabetic retinopathy screening attendance: Protocol for a systematic review

BACKGROUND: Diabetic retinopathy is a serious complication of diabetes which, if left untreated, can result in blindness. Population screening among people with diabetes has been shown to be clinically effective; however, suboptimal attendance with wide demographic disparities has been reported. To develop quality improvement interventions to maximise attendance, it is important to understand the theoretical determinants (i.e. barriers and enablers) of screening behaviour. The aim of this systematic review is to identify and synthesise the modifiable barriers and enablers associated with diabetic retinopathy screening attendance. METHODS/DESIGN: Primary and secondary studies will be included if they report perceived barriers/enablers of diabetic retinopathy screening attendance, from the perspectives of people with diabetes and healthcare providers. There will be no restrictions on study design. Studies will be identified from published and grey literature through multiple sources. Bibliographic databases will be searched using synonyms in four search domains: diabetic retinopathy; screening; barriers/enablers; and theoretical constructs relating to behaviour. Search engines and established databases of grey literature will be searched to identify additional relevant studies. Extracted data will include: participant quotations from qualitative studies, statistical analyses from questionnaire and survey studies, and interpretive descriptions and summaries of results from reports. All extracted data will be coded into domains from the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and (for organisational level data) the Consolidated Framework of Implementation Research (CFIR); with domains representing theoretical barriers/enablers proposed to mediate behaviour change. The potential role of each domain in influencing retinopathy screening attendance will be investigated through thematic analysis of the TDF/ CFIR coding. Domain importance will be identified using pre-specified criteria: "frequency" and "expressed importance". Variations in perceived barriers and enablers between demographic groups (e.g., socio-economic, ethnic) will be explored. DISCUSSION: This review will identify important barriers and enablers likely to influence attendance for diabetic retinopathy screening. The results will be used to assess the extent to which existing interventions targeting attendance address the theoretical determinants of attendance behaviour. Findings will inform recommendations for future intervention design. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016032990