Automating risk of bias assessment in systematic reviews: a real-time mixed methods comparison of human researchers to a machine learning system.

BACKGROUND: Machine learning and automation are increasingly used to make the evidence synthesis process faster and more responsive to policymakers' needs. In systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), risk of bias assessment is a resource-intensive task that typically requires two trained reviewers. One function of RobotReviewer, an off-the-shelf machine learning system, is an automated risk of bias assessment. METHODS: We assessed the feasibility of adopting RobotReviewer within a national public health institute using a randomized, real-time, user-centered study. The study included 26 RCTs and six reviewers from two projects examining health and social interventions. We randomized these studies to one of two RobotReviewer platforms. We operationalized feasibility as accuracy, time use, and reviewer acceptability. We measured accuracy by the number of corrections made by human reviewers (either to automated assessments or another human reviewer's assessments). We explored acceptability through group discussions and individual email responses after presenting the quantitative results. RESULTS: Reviewers were equally likely to accept judgment by RobotReviewer as each other's judgement during the consensus process when measured dichotomously; risk ratio 1.02 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.13; p = 0.33). We were not able to compare time use. The acceptability of the program by researchers was mixed. Less experienced reviewers were generally more positive, and they saw more benefits and were able to use the tool more flexibly. Reviewers positioned human input and human-to-human interaction as superior to even a semi-automation of this process. CONCLUSION: Despite being presented with evidence of RobotReviewer's equal performance to humans, participating reviewers were not interested in modifying standard procedures to include automation. If further studies confirm equal accuracy and reduced time compared to manual practices, we suggest that the benefits of RobotReviewer may support its future implementation as one of two assessors, despite reviewer ambivalence. Future research should study barriers to adopting automated tools and how highly educated and experienced researchers can adapt to a job market that is increasingly challenged by new technologies.

Emergency care with lay responders in underserved populations: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the individual and community health effects of task shifting for emergency care in low-resource settings and underserved populations worldwide. METHODS: We systematically searched 13 databases and additional grey literature for studies published between 1984 and 2019. Eligible studies involved emergency care training for laypeople in underserved or low-resource populations, and any quantitative assessment of effects on the health of individuals or communities. We conducted duplicate assessments of study eligibility, data abstraction and quality. We synthesized findings in narrative and tabular format. FINDINGS: Of 19 308 papers retrieved, 34 studies met the inclusion criteria from low- and middle-income countries (21 studies) and underserved populations in high-income countries (13 studies). Targeted emergency conditions included trauma, burns, cardiac arrest, opioid poisoning, malaria, paediatric communicable diseases and malnutrition. Trainees included the general public, non-health-care professionals, volunteers and close contacts of at-risk populations, all trained through in-class, peer and multimodal education and public awareness campaigns. Important clinical and policy outcomes included improvements in community capacity to manage emergencies (14 studies), patient outcomes (13 studies) and community health (seven studies). While substantial effects were observed for programmes to address paediatric malaria, trauma and opioid poisoning, most studies reported modest effect sizes and two reported null results. Most studies were of weak (24 studies) or moderate quality (nine studies). CONCLUSION: First aid education and task shifting to laypeople for emergency care may reduce patient morbidity and mortality and build community capacity to manage health emergencies for a variety of emergency conditions in underserved and low-resource settings.

Instruments to measure fear of COVID-19: a diagnostic systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has become a source of fear across the world. Measuring the level or significance of fear in different populations may help identify populations and areas in need of public health and education campaigns. We were interested in diagnostic tests developed to assess or diagnose COVID-19-related fear or phobia. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of studies that examined instruments diagnosing or assessing fear or phobia of COVID-19 (PROSPERO registration: CRD42020197100). We utilized the Norwegian Institute of Public Health's Live map of covid-19 evidence, a database of pre-screened and pre-categorized studies. The Live map of covid-19 evidence identified references published since 1 December 2019 in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Following biweekly searches, two researchers independently categorized all studies according to topic (seven main topics, 52 subordinate topics), population (41 available groups), study design, and publication type. For this review, we assessed for eligibility all studies that had been categorized to the topic "Experiences and perceptions, consequences; social, political, economic aspects" as of 25 September 2020, in addition to hand-searching included studies' reference lists. We meta-analyzed correlation coefficients of fear scores to the most common reference tests (self-reports of anxiety, depression, and stress), and reported additional concurrent validity to other reference tests such as specific phobias. We assessed study quality using the QUADAS-2 for the minority of studies that presented diagnostic accuracy statistics. RESULTS: We found 18 studies that validated fear instruments. Fifteen validated the Fear of COVID-19 scale (FCV-19S). We found no studies that proposed a diagnosis of fear of COVID-19 or a threshold of significant/clinical versus non-significant/subclinical fear. Study quality was low, with the most common potential biases related to sampling strategy and un-blinded data analysis. The FSV-19S total score correlated strongly with severe phobia (r = 0.703, 95%CI 0.634-0.761) in one study, and moderately with anxiety in a meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of the FSV-19S needs to be measured further using fear-related reference instruments, and future studies need to provide cut-off scores and normative values. Further evaluation of the remaining three instruments is required.

Involving general practice trainees in clinical practice guideline adaptation.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether it is feasible to involve residents in guideline development or adaptation. We designed a multifaceted training program that combines training sessions, a handbook and a documentation tool to assist general practice (GP)-trainees in the adaptation of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). The aim of this study is to adapt a database of CPGs by involving GP-trainees and to build evidence-based practice (EBP) learning capacity. METHODS: We assessed each adaptation process and surveyed all GP-trainees who enrolled in our training program on their views on the program. They were asked to formulate an overall rating for the training and were asked to rate individual aspects of the training program (the training sessions, the handbook and the documentation tool). RESULTS: To date, 122 GP-trainees followed the training and have adapted 60 different CPGs. Overall quality of their work was good. Based on an assessment of the content of the documentation tool, 24 (40%) adapted CPGs rated as good quality and 30 (50%) rated as moderate quality. Only 3 adapted CPGs (5%) were evaluated as being of poor quality. 51 (42%) GP-trainees completed the survey on user satisfaction. 98% (50) of the GP-trainees found the training to be of good overall quality. 86% of the GP-trainees were satisfied with the handbook but satisfaction was lowest for the documentation tool (47% satisfied). CONCLUSION: It is possible to engage GP-trainees in CPG adaptation using a formal process when provided with training, feedback and documentation tools.

Evidence-based prehospital management of severe traumatic brain injury: a comparative analysis of current clinical practice guidelines.

OBJECTIVE: This study appraised the completeness and level of evidence behind prehospital recommendations in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for management of severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). Differences and similarities in key recommendations for prehospital emergency care were assessed between current CPGs. METHODS: A systematic search identified current evidence-based CPGs for the management of severe TBI. The identified CPGs were screened for prehospital recommendations. Finally, an evaluation of the completeness and level of evidence for each of the identified recommendations was carried out. A review of the literature identified additional evidence. Designs of the retrieved publications were considered and classified according to the GRADE levels of evidence. RESULTS: This study identified 12 current CPGs for the management of patients after traumatic brain injury. Of these, twenty-one prehospital recommendations were selected. Only a few CPGs made recommendations on temperature management and ventilation patterns. Statements on prehospital transport and advanced airway management were common to all of the guidelines. Statements on initial treatment demonstrated the greatest variability. The literature review identified several relevant publications not included in the CPGs even after we controlled for the indicated time-intervals of their literature search. In addition, evidence from more recent trials published outside the search-interval of the clinical practice guidelines was found. CONCLUSIONS: The use of current guidelines on traumatic brain injury will not always facilitate decisions about best or most appropriate practice for prehospital practitioners. The amount of recommended prehospital interventions varied considerably, and there was large content variation in prehospital recommendations in these guidelines. Not all evidence was taken into account and not all CPGs were up-to-date.

Human computation as a new method for evidence-based knowledge transfer in Web-based guideline development groups: proof of concept randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Guideline developers use different consensus methods to develop evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Previous research suggests that existing guideline development techniques are subject to methodological problems and are logistically demanding. Guideline developers welcome new methods that facilitate a methodologically sound decision-making process. Systems that aggregate knowledge while participants play a game are one class of human computation applications. Researchers have already proven that these games with a purpose are effective in building common sense knowledge databases. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the feasibility of a new consensus method based on human computation techniques compared to an informal face-to-face consensus method. METHODS: We set up a randomized design to study 2 different methods for guideline development within a group of advanced students completing a master of nursing and obstetrics. Students who participated in the trial were enrolled in an evidence-based health care course. We compared the Web-based method of human-based computation (HC) with an informal face-to-face consensus method (IC). We used 4 clinical scenarios of lower back pain as the subject of the consensus process. These scenarios concerned the following topics: (1) medical imaging, (2) therapeutic options, (3) drugs use, and (4) sick leave. Outcomes were expressed as the amount of group (dis)agreement and the concordance of answers with clinical evidence. We estimated within-group and between-group effect sizes by calculating Cohen's d. We calculated within-group effect sizes as the absolute difference between the outcome value at round 3 and the baseline outcome value, divided by the pooled standard deviation. We calculated between-group effect sizes as the absolute difference between the mean change in outcome value across rounds in HC and the mean change in outcome value across rounds in IC, divided by the pooled standard deviation. We analyzed statistical significance of within-group changes between round 1 and round 3 using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. We assessed the differences between the HC and IC groups using Mann-Whitney U tests. We used a Bonferroni adjusted alpha level of .025 in all statistical tests. We performed a thematic analysis to explore participants' arguments during group discussion. Participants completed a satisfaction survey at the end of the consensus process. RESULTS: Of the 135 students completing a master of nursing and obstetrics, 120 participated in the experiment. We formed 8 HC groups (n=64) and 7 IC groups (n=56). The between-group comparison demonstrated that the human computation groups obtained a greater improvement in evidence scores compared to the IC groups, although the difference was not statistically significant. The between-group effect size was 0.56 (P=.30) for the medical imaging scenario, 0.07 (P=.97) for the therapeutic options scenario, and 0.89 (P=.11) for the drug use scenario. We found no significant differences in improvement in the degree of agreement between HC and IC groups. Between-group comparisons revealed that the HC groups showed greater improvement in degree of agreement for the medical imaging scenario (d=0.46, P=.37) and the drug use scenario (d=0.31, P=.59). Very few evidence arguments (6%) were quoted during informal group discussions. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the use of the IC method was appropriate as long as the evidence supported participants' beliefs or usual practice, or when the availability of the evidence was sparse. However, when some controversy about the evidence existed, the HC method outperformed the IC method. The findings of our study illustrate the importance of the choice of the consensus method in guideline development. Human computation could be an acceptable methodology for guideline development specifically for scenarios in which the evidence shows no resonance with participants' beliefs. Future research is needed to confirm the results of this study and to establish practical significance in a controlled setting of multidisciplinary guideline panels during real-life guideline development.

Can training improve laypersons helping behaviour in first aid? A randomised controlled deception trial.

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence indicating that laypersons trained in first aid provide better help, but do not help more often than untrained laypersons. This study investigated the effect of conventional first aid training versus conventional training plus supplementary training aimed at decreasing barriers to helping. METHODS: The authors conducted a randomised controlled trial. After 24 h of conventional first aid training, the participants either attended an experimental lesson to reduce barriers to helping or followed a control lesson. The authors used a deception test to measure the time between the start of the unannounced simulated emergency and seeking help behaviour and the number of particular helping actions. RESULTS: The authors randomised 72 participants to both groups. 22 participants were included in the analysis for the experimental group and 36 in the control group. The authors found no statistically or clinically significant differences for any of the outcome measures. The time until seeking help (geometrical mean and 95% CI) was 55.5 s (42.9 to 72.0) in the experimental group and 56.5 s (43.0 to 74.3) in the control group. 57% of the participants asked a bystander to seek help, 40% left the victim to seek help themselves and 3% did not seek any help. CONCLUSION: Supplementary training on dealing with barriers to helping did not alter the helping behaviour. The timing and appropriateness of the aid provided can be improved. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The authors registered this trial at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT00954161.

Do providers use computerized clinical decision support systems? A systematic review and meta-regression of clinical decision support uptake.

BACKGROUND: Computerized clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) are a promising knowledge translation tool, but often fail to meaningfully influence the outcomes they target. Low CDSS provider uptake is a potential contributor to this problem but has not been systematically studied. The objective of this systematic review and meta-regression was to determine reported CDSS uptake and identify which CDSS features may influence uptake. METHODS: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Database of Controlled Trials were searched from January 2000 to August 2020. Randomized, non-randomized, and quasi-experimental trials reporting CDSS uptake in any patient population or setting were included. The main outcome extracted was CDSS uptake, reported as a raw proportion, and representing the number of times the CDSS was used or accessed over the total number of times it could have been interacted with. We also extracted context, content, system, and implementation features that might influence uptake, for each CDSS. Overall weighted uptake was calculated using random-effects meta-analysis and determinants of uptake were investigated using multivariable meta-regression. RESULTS: Among 7995 citations screened, 55 studies involving 373,608 patients and 3607 providers met full inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis revealed that overall CDSS uptake was 34.2% (95% CI 23.2 to 47.1%). Uptake was only reported in 12.4% of studies that otherwise met inclusion criteria. Multivariable meta-regression revealed the following factors significantly associated with uptake: (1) formally evaluating the availability and quality of the patient data needed to inform CDSS advice; and (2) identifying and addressing other barriers to the behaviour change targeted by the CDSS. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: System uptake was seldom reported in CDSS trials. When reported, uptake was low. This represents a major and potentially modifiable barrier to overall CDSS effectiveness. We found that features relating to CDSS context and implementation strategy best predicted uptake. Future studies should measure the impact of addressing these features as part of the CDSS implementation strategy. Uptake reporting must also become standard in future studies reporting CDSS intervention effects. REGISTRATION: Pre-registered on PROSPERO, CRD42018092337.

How are ontologies implemented to represent clinical practice guidelines in clinical decision support systems: protocol for a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines are statements which are based on the best available evidence, and their goal is to improve the quality of patient care. Integrating clinical practice guidelines into computer systems can help physicians reduce medical errors and help them to have the best possible practice. Guideline-based clinical decision support systems play a significant role in supporting physicians in their decisions. Meantime, system errors are the most critical concerns in designing decision support systems that can affect their performance and efficacy. A well-developed ontology can be helpful in this matter. The proposed systematic review will specify the methods, components, language of rules, and evaluation methods of current ontology-driven guideline-based clinical decision support systems. METHODS: This review will identify literature through searching MEDLINE (via Ovid), PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, ScienceDirect, IEEEXplore, and ACM Digital Library. Gray literature, reference lists, and citing articles of the included studies will be searched. The quality of the included studies will be assessed by the mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT-version 2018). At least two independent reviewers will perform the screening, quality assessment, and data extraction. A third reviewer will resolve any disagreements. Proper data analysis will be performed based on the type of system and ontology engineering evaluation data. DISCUSSION: The study will provide evidence regarding applying ontologies in guideline-based clinical decision support systems. The findings of this systematic review will be a guide for decision support system designers and developers, technologists, system providers, policymakers, and stakeholders. Ontology builders can use the information in this review to build well-structured ontologies for personalized medicine. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018106501.

Medicinal use of potato-derived products: conclusions of a rapid versus full systematic review.

Vlachojannis et al reported a systematic review on the medicinal use of potato-derived products. The authors identified five trials for inclusion in the review, including one study on the treatment of burns. Based on this RCT the review authors concluded that potato peel is not recommended for burns. As the authors of a rapid review on the use of potato peels for burns, we read this systematic review with great interest. Although the concept of rapid review is rising, accelerating the review process might introduce bias and its conclusions may be subject to change once a systematic review is available. Since this rapid and systematic review were done at similar times, we explored if the results were consistent. We identified three trials on the use of potato peels. Two of these trials were not mentioned in the systematic review. The evidence indicates that sterile potato peel dressings are better than gauze alone during the healing phase.While there is no evidence of an antibacterial effect, we concluded that potato peels promote healing. Potato peel dressings might be the best available dressing in resource poor countries. Because systematic reviews have a major impact it is crucial that systematic reviews meet specified quality criteria. Therefore we draw attention to adherance to the PRISMA statement.

The attitude of Flemish occupational health physicians toward evidence-based occupational health and clinical practice guidelines.

PURPOSE: To identify the attitude of occupational health physicians toward evidence-based occupational health (EBOH) and clinical practice guidelines (CPGs); to determine their ability to access, retrieve and appraise the health evidence and the barriers to applying evidence to practice. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey study was carried out among all Dutch-speaking occupational health physicians in Belgium (584 physicians could be reached). RESULTS: A response rate of 25.5% was achieved. The majority of respondents were positive toward EBOH and CPGs. Most respondents were less confident in basic skills of EBM, except for their searching skills. Perceived barriers to applying evidence to practice were mainly time and lack of EBM skills. CONCLUSIONS: Belgian occupational health physicians are interested in the implementation of EBOH in their daily occupational practice and have a general knowledge of EBM. However, there are barriers in the legislative framework, the education and the information infrastructure, which first have to be removed. The time has come for the responsible authorities to take educational initiatives and to take a huge leap forward in the integration of EBOH into occupational practice.

Coding Systems for Clinical Decision Support: Theoretical and Real-World Comparative Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Effective clinical decision support systems require accurate translation of practice recommendations into machine-readable artifacts; developing code sets that represent clinical concepts are an important step in this process. Many clinical coding systems are currently used in electronic health records, and it is unclear whether all of these systems are capable of efficiently representing the clinical concepts required in executing clinical decision support systems. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate which clinical coding systems are capable of efficiently representing clinical concepts that are necessary for translating artifacts into executable code for clinical decision support systems. METHODS: Two methods were used to evaluate a set of clinical coding systems. In a theoretical approach, we extracted all the clinical concepts from 3 preventive care recommendations and constructed a series of code sets containing codes from a single clinical coding system. In a practical approach using data from a real-world setting, we studied the content of 1890 code sets used in an internationally available clinical decision support system and compared the usage of various clinical coding systems. RESULTS: SNOMED CT and ICD-10 (International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision) proved to be the most accurate clinical coding systems for most concepts in our theoretical evaluation. In our practical evaluation, we found that International Classification of Diseases (Tenth Revision) was most often used to construct code sets. Some coding systems were very accurate in representing specific types of clinical concepts, for example, LOINC (Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes) for investigation results and ATC (Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification) for drugs. CONCLUSIONS: No single coding system seems to fulfill all the needs for representing clinical concepts for clinical decision support systems. Comprehensiveness of the coding systems seems to be offset by complexity and forms a barrier to usability for code set construction. Clinical vocabularies mapped to multiple clinical coding systems could facilitate clinical code set construction.

Computerized clinical decision support system for diabetes in primary care does not improve quality of care: a cluster-randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The EBMeDS system is the computerized clinical decision support (CCDS) system of EBPNet, a national computerized point-of-care information service in Belgium. There is no clear evidence of more complex CCDS systems to manage chronic diseases in primary care practices (PCPs). The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of EBMeDS use in improving diabetes care. METHODS: A cluster-randomized trial with before-and-after measurements was performed in Belgian PCPs over 1 year, from May 2017 to May 2018. We randomly assigned 51 practices to either the intervention group (IG), to receive the EBMeDS system, or to the control group (CG), to receive usual care. Primary and secondary outcomes were the 1-year pre- to post-implementation change in HbA1c, LDL cholesterol, and systolic and diastolic blood pressure. Composite patient and process scores were calculated. A process evaluation was added to the analysis. Results were analyzed at 6 and 12 months. Linear mixed models and logistic regression models based on generalized estimating equations were used where appropriate. RESULTS: Of the 51 PCPs that were enrolled and randomly assigned (26 PCPs in the CG and 25 in the IG), 29 practices (3815 patients) were analyzed in the study: 2464 patients in the CG and 1351 patients in the IG. No change differences existed between groups in primary or secondary outcomes. Change difference between CG and IG after 1-year follow-up was - 0.09 (95% CI - 0.18; 0.01, p-value = 0.06) for HbA1c; 1.76 (95% CI - 0.46; 3.98, p-value = 0.12) for LDL cholesterol; and 0.13 (95% CI - 0.91; 1.16, p-value = 0.81) and 0.12 (95% CI - 1.25;1.49, p-value = 0.86) for systolic and diastolic blood pressure respectively. The odds ratio of the IG versus the CG for the probability of no worsening and improvement was 1.09 (95% CI 0.73; 1.63, p-value = 0.67) for the process composite score and 0.74 (95% CI 0.49; 1.12, p-value = 0.16) for the composite patient score. All but one physician was satisfied with the EBMeDS system. CONCLUSIONS: The CCDS system EBMeDS did not improve diabetes care in Belgian primary care. The lack of improvement was mainly caused by imperfections in the organizational context of Belgian primary care for chronic disease management and shortcomings in the system requirements for the correct use of the EBMeDS system (e.g., complete structured records). These shortcomings probably caused low-use rates of the system. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01830569, Registered 12 April 2013.

The mental health impact of the covid-19 pandemic on healthcare workers, and interventions to help them: A rapid systematic review.

The covid-19 pandemic has heavily burdened healthcare systems throughout the world. We performed a rapid systematic review to identify, assess and summarize research on the mental health impact of the covid-19 pandemic on HCWs (healthcare workers). We utilized the Norwegian Institute of Public Health's Live map of covid-19 evidence on 11 May and included 59 studies. Six reported on implementing interventions, but none reported on effects of the interventions. HCWs reported low interest in professional help, and greater reliance on social support and contact. Exposure to covid-19 was the most commonly reported correlate of mental health problems, followed by female gender, and worry about infection or about infecting others. Social support correlated with less mental health problems. HCWs reported anxiety, depression, sleep problems, and distress during the covid-19 pandemic. We assessed the certainty of the estimates of prevalence of these symptoms as very low using GRADE. Most studies did not report comparative data on mental health symptoms before the pandemic or in the general population. There seems to be a mismatch between risk factors for adverse mental health outcomes among HCWs in the current pandemic, their needs and preferences, and the individual psychopathology focus of current interventions.

Effectiveness of nonresuscitative first aid training in laypersons: a systematic review.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: This study reviewed evidence on the effects of nonresuscitative first aid training on competence and helping behavior in laypersons. METHODS: We identified randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials and interrupted time series on nonresuscitative first aid training for laypersons by using 12 databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO), hand searching, reference checking, and author communication. Two reviewers independently evaluated selected studies with the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Review Group quality criteria. One reviewer extracted data with a standard form and another checked them. In anticipation of substantial heterogeneity across studies, we elected a descriptive summary of the included studies. RESULTS: We included 4 studies, 3 of which were randomized trials. We excluded 11 studies on quality issues. Two studies revealed that participants trained in first aid demonstrated higher written test scores than controls (poisoning first aid: relative risk 2.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.64 to 2.72; various first aid cases: mean difference 4.75, 95% CI 3.02 to 6.48). Two studies evaluated helping responses during unannounced simulations. First aid training improved the quality of help for a bleeding emergency (relative risk 25.94; 95% CI 3.60 to 186.93), not the rate of helping (relative risk 1.13; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.45). Training in first aid and helping behavior increased the helping rates in a chest pain emergency compared with training in first aid only (relative risk 2.80; 95% CI 1.05 to 7.50) or controls (relative risk 3.81; 95% CI 0.98 to 14.89). Participants trained in first aid only did not help more than controls (relative risk 1.36; 95% CI 0.28 to 6.61). CONCLUSION: First aid programs that also train participants to overcome inhibitors of emergency helping behavior could lead to better help and higher helping rates.

The attitude of Belgian social insurance physicians towards evidence-based practice and clinical practice guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based medicine has broadened its scope and is starting to reach insurance medicine. Although still in its initial stages, physicians in the area of insurance medicine should keep up-to-date with the evidence on various diseases in order to correctly assess disability and to give appropriate advice about health care reimbursement. In order to explore future opportunities of evidence-based medicine to improve daily insurance medicine, there is a need for qualitative studies to better understand insurance physicians' perceptions of EBM. The present study was designed to identify the attitude of insurance physicians towards evidence-based medicine and clinical practice guidelines, and to determine their ability to access, retrieve and appraise the health evidence and the barriers for applying evidence to practice. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey study was carried out among all Dutch-speaking insurance physicians employed at one of the six Belgian social insurance sickness funds and at the National Institute of Disability and Health care Insurance (n = 224). Chi-square tests were used to compare nominal and ordinal variables. Student's t-tests, ANOVA, Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis were used to compare means of continuous variables for different groups. RESULTS: The response rate was 48.7%. The majority of respondents were positive towards evidence-based medicine and clinical practice guidelines. Their knowledge of EBM was rather poor. Perceived barriers for applying evidence to practice were mainly time and lack of EBM skills. CONCLUSION: Although the majority of physicians were positive towards EBM and welcomed more guidelines, the use of evidence and clinical practice guidelines in insurance medicine is low at present. It is in the first place important to eradicate the perceived inertia which limits the use of EBM and to further investigate the EBM principles in the context of insurance medicine. Available high-quality evidence-based resources (at the moment mainly originating from other medical fields) need to be structured in a way that is useful for insurance physicians and global access to this information needs to be ensured.

The GUIDES checklist: development of a tool to improve the successful use of guideline-based computerised clinical decision support.

BACKGROUND: Computerised decision support (CDS) based on trustworthy clinical guidelines is a key component of a learning healthcare system. Research shows that the effectiveness of CDS is mixed. Multifaceted context, system, recommendation and implementation factors may potentially affect the success of CDS interventions. This paper describes the development of a checklist that is intended to support professionals to implement CDS successfully. METHODS: We developed the checklist through an iterative process that involved a systematic review of evidence and frameworks, a synthesis of the success factors identified in the review, feedback from an international expert panel that evaluated the checklist in relation to a list of desirable framework attributes, consultations with patients and healthcare consumers and pilot testing of the checklist. RESULTS: We screened 5347 papers and selected 71 papers with relevant information on success factors for guideline-based CDS. From the selected papers, we developed a 16-factor checklist that is divided in four domains, i.e. the CDS context, content, system and implementation domains. The panel of experts evaluated the checklist positively as an instrument that could support people implementing guideline-based CDS across a wide range of settings globally. Patients and healthcare consumers identified guideline-based CDS as an important quality improvement intervention and perceived the GUIDES checklist as a suitable and useful strategy. CONCLUSIONS: The GUIDES checklist can support professionals in considering the factors that affect the success of CDS interventions. It may facilitate a deeper and more accurate understanding of the factors shaping CDS effectiveness. Relying on a structured approach may prevent that important factors are missed.

A systematic review of trials evaluating success factors of interventions with computerised clinical decision support.

BACKGROUND: Computerised clinical decision support (CDS) can potentially better inform decisions, and it can help with the management of information overload. It is perceived to be a key component of a learning health care system. Despite its increasing implementation worldwide, it remains uncertain why the effect of CDS varies and which factors make CDS more effective. OBJECTIVE: To examine which factors make CDS strategies more effective on a number of outcomes, including adherence to recommended practice, patient outcome measures, economic measures, provider or patient satisfaction, and medical decision quality. METHODS: We identified randomised controlled trials, non-randomised trials, and controlled before-and-after studies that directly compared CDS implementation with a given factor to CDS without that factor by searching CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL and checking reference lists of relevant studies. We considered CDS with any objective for any condition in any healthcare setting. We included CDS interventions that were either displayed on screen or provided on paper and that were directed at healthcare professionals or targeted at both professionals and patients. The reviewers screened the potentially relevant studies in duplicate. They extracted data and assessed risk of bias in independent pairs or individually followed by a double check by another reviewer. We summarised results using medians and interquartile ranges and rated our certainty in the evidence using the GRADE system. RESULTS: We identified 66 head-to-head trials that we synthesised across 14 comparisons of CDS intervention factors. Providing CDS automatically versus on demand led to large improvements in adherence. Displaying CDS on-screen versus on paper led to moderate improvements and making CDS more versus less patient-specific improved adherence modestly. When CDS interventions were combined with professional-oriented strategies, combined with patient-oriented strategies, or combined with staff-oriented strategies, then adherence improved slightly. Providing CDS to patients slightly increased adherence versus CDS aimed at the healthcare provider only. Making CDS advice more explicit and requiring users to respond to the advice made little or no difference. The CDS intervention factors made little or no difference to patient outcomes. The results for economic outcomes and satisfaction outcomes were sparse. CONCLUSION: Multiple factors may affect the success of CDS interventions. CDS may be more effective when the advice is provided automatically and displayed on-screen and when the suggestions are more patient-specific. CDS interventions combined with other strategies probably also improves adherence. Providing CDS directly to patients may also positively affect adherence. The certainty of the evidence was low to moderate for all factors. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42016033738.

Development of a Tailored Intervention With Computerized Clinical Decision Support to Improve Quality of Care for Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis: Multi-Method Study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice patterns greatly diverge from evidence-based recommendations to manage knee osteoarthritis conservatively before resorting to surgery. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to tailor a guideline-based computerized decision support (CDS) intervention that facilitates the conservative management of knee osteoarthritis. METHODS: Experts with backgrounds in clinical medicine, research, implementation, or health informatics suggested the most important recommendations for implementation, how to develop an implementation strategy, and how to form the CDS algorithms. In 6 focus group sessions, 8 general practitioners and 22 patients from Norway, Belgium, and Finland discussed the suggested CDS intervention and identified factors that would be most critical for the success of the intervention. The focus group moderators used the GUideline Implementation with DEcision Support checklist, which we developed to support consideration of CDS success factors. RESULTS: The experts prioritized 9 out of 22 recommendations for implementation. We formed the concept for 6 CDS algorithms to support implementation of these recommendations. The focus group suggested 59 unique factors that could affect the success of the presented CDS intervention. Five factors (out of the 59) were prioritized by focus group participants in every country, including the perceived potential to address the information needs of both patients and general practitioners; the credibility of CDS information; the timing of CDS for patients; and the need for personal dialogue about CDS between the general practitioner and the patient. CONCLUSIONS: The focus group participants supported the CDS intervention as a tool to improve the quality of care for patients with knee osteoarthritis through shared, evidence-based decision making. We aim to develop and implement the CDS based on these study results. Future research should address optimal ways to (1) provide patient-directed CDS, (2) enable more patient-specific CDS within the context of patient complexity, and (3) maintain user engagement with CDS over time.