Global impacts of COVID-19 pandemic on sexual and reproductive health services: An international comparative study on primary care from the INTRePID Consortium.

OBJECTIVE: To understand how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted sexual and reproductive health (SRH) visits. DESIGN: An ecological study comparing SRH services volume in different countries before and after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. SETTING: Seven countries from the INTernational ConsoRtium of Primary Care BIg Data Researchers (INTRePID) across four continents. POPULATION: Over 3.8 million SRH visits to primary care physicians in Australia, China, Canada, Norway, Singapore, Sweden and the USA. METHODS: Difference in average SRH monthly visits before and during the pandemic, with negative binomial regression modelling to compare predicted and observed number of visits during the pandemic for SRH visits. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Monthly number of visits to primary care physicians from 2018 to 2021. RESULTS: During the pandemic, the average volume of monthly SRH visits increased in Canada (15.6%, 99% CI 8.1-23.0%) where virtual care was pronounced. China, Singapore, Sweden and the USA experienced a decline (-56.5%, 99% CI -74.5 to -38.5%; -22.7%, 99% CI -38.8 to -6.5%; -19.4%, 99% CI -28.3 to -10.6%; and -22.7%, 99% CI -38.8 to -6.5%, respectively); while Australia and Norway showed insignificant changes (6.5%, 99% CI -0.7 to -13.8% and 1.7%, 99% CI -6.4 to -9.8%). The countries that maintained (Australia, Norway) or surpassed (Canada) pre-pandemic visit rates had the greatest use of virtual care. CONCLUSIONS: In-person SRH visits to primary care decreased during the pandemic. Virtual care seemed to counterbalance that decline. Although cervical cancer screening appeared insensitive to virtual care, strategies such as incorporating self-collected samples for HPV testing may provide a solution in a future pandemic.

Anomalies in the review process and interpretation of the evidence in the NICE guideline for chronic fatigue syndrome and myalgic encephalomyelitis.

Chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) is a disabling long-term condition of unknown cause. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) published a guideline in 2021 that highlighted the seriousness of the condition, but also recommended that graded exercise therapy (GET) should not be used and cognitive-behavioural therapy should only be used to manage symptoms and reduce distress, not to aid recovery. This U-turn in recommendations from the previous 2007 guideline is controversial.We suggest that the controversy stems from anomalies in both processing and interpretation of the evidence by the NICE committee. The committee: (1) created a new definition of CFS/ME, which 'downgraded' the certainty of trial evidence; (2) omitted data from standard trial end points used to assess efficacy; (3) discounted trial data when assessing treatment harm in favour of lower quality surveys and qualitative studies; (4) minimised the importance of fatigue as an outcome; (5) did not use accepted practices to synthesise trial evidence adequately using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations trial evidence); (6) interpreted GET as mandating fixed increments of change when trials defined it as collaborative, negotiated and symptom dependent; (7) deviated from NICE recommendations of rehabilitation for related conditions, such as chronic primary pain and (8) recommended an energy management approach in the absence of supportive research evidence.We conclude that the dissonance between this and the previous guideline was the result of deviating from usual scientific standards of the NICE process. The consequences of this are that patients may be denied helpful treatments and therefore risk persistent ill health and disability.

Chronic fatigue syndromes: real illnesses that people can recover from.

The 'Oslo Chronic Fatigue Consortium' consists of researchers and clinicians who question the current narrative that chronic fatigue syndromes, including post-covid conditions, are incurable diseases. Instead, we propose an alternative view, based on research, which offers more hope to patients. Whilst we regard the symptoms of these conditions as real, we propose that they are more likely to reflect the brain's response to a range of biological, psychological, and social factors, rather than a specific disease process. Possible causes include persistent activation of the neurobiological stress response, accompanied by associated changes in immunological, hormonal, cognitive and behavioural domains. We further propose that the symptoms are more likely to persist if they are perceived as threatening, and all activities that are perceived to worsen them are avoided. We also question the idea that the best way to cope with the illness is by prolonged rest, social isolation, and sensory deprivation.Instead, we propose that recovery is often possible if patients are helped to adopt a less threatening understanding of their symptoms and are supported in a gradual return to normal activities. Finally, we call for a much more open and constructive dialogue about these conditions. This dialogue should include a wider range of views, including those of patients who have recovered from them.

Health communication in and out of public health emergencies: to persuade or to inform?

Much health communication during the COVID-19 pandemic has been designed to persuade people more than to inform them. For example, messages like "masks save lives" are intended to compel people to wear face masks, not to enable them to make an informed decision about whether to wear a face mask or to understand the justification for a mask mandate. Both persuading people and informing them are reasonable goals for health communication. However, those goals can sometimes be in conflict. In this article, we discuss potential conflicts between seeking to persuade or to inform people, the use of spin to persuade people, the ethics of persuasion, and implications for health communication in the context of the pandemic and generally. Decisions to persuade people rather than enable them to make an informed choice may be justified, but the basis for those decisions should be transparent and the evidence should not be distorted. We suggest nine principles to guide decisions by health authorities about whether to try to persuade people.

Users' experiences with an interactive Evidence to Decision (iEtD) framework: a qualitative analysis.

BACKGROUND: Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks bring clarity, structure and transparency to health care decision making. The interactive Evidence to Decision (iEtD) tool, developed in the context of the DECIDE project and published by Epistemonikos, is a stand-alone online solution for producing and using EtD frameworks. Since its development, little is known about how organizations have been using the iEtD tool and what characterizes users' experiences with it. This missing information is necessary for any teams planning future developments of the iEtD tool. METHODS: This study aimed to describe users' experiences with the iEtD and identify main barriers and facilitators related to use. We contacted all users registered in the iEtD via email and invited people who identified themselves as having used the solution to a semi-structured interview. Audio recordings were transcribed, and one researcher conducted a directed content analysis of the interviews guided by a user experience framework. Two researchers checked the content independently for accuracy. RESULTS: Out of 860 people contacted, 81 people replied to our introductory email (response rate 9.4%). Twenty of these had used the tool in a real scenario and were invited to an interview. We interviewed all eight users that accepted this invitation (from six countries, four continents). 'Guideline development' was the iEtD use scenario they most commonly identified. Most participants reported an overall positive experience, without major difficulties navigating or using the different sections. They reported having used most of the EtD framework criteria. Participants reported tailoring their frameworks, for instance by adding or deleting criteria, translating to another language, or rewording headings. Several people preferred to produce a Word version rather than working online, due to the burden of completing the framework, or lack of experience with the tool. Some reported difficulties working with the exportable formats, as they needed considerable editing. CONCLUSION: A very limited number of guideline developers have used the iEtD tool published by Epistemonikos since its development. Although users' general experiences are positive, our work has identified some aspects of the tool that need improvement. Our findings could be also applied to development or improvement of other solutions for producing or using EtD frameworks.

Potential causal factors of CFS/ME: a concise and systematic scoping review of factors researched.

BACKGROUND: Chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) is understood as a complex condition, likely triggered and sustained by an interplay of biological, psychological, and social factors. Little oversight exists of the field of causal research. This systematic scoping review explores potential causal factors of CFS/ME as researched by primary studies. METHODS: We searched eight databases for primary studies that examined potential causal factors of CFS/ME. Based on title/abstract review, two researchers independently sorted each study's factors into nine main categories and 71 subordinate categories, using a system developed with input given during a 2018 ME conference, specialists and representatives from a ME patient advocacy group, and using BMJ Best Practice's description of CFS/ME etiology. We also extracted data related to study design, size, diagnostic criteria and comparison groups. RESULTS: We included 1161 primary studies published between January 1979 and June 2019. Based on title/abstract analysis, no single causal factor dominated in these studies, and studies reported a mean of 2.73 factors. The four most common factors were: immunological (297 studies), psychological (243), infections (198), and neuroendocrinal (198). The most frequent study designs were case-control studies (894 studies) comparing CFS/ME patients with healthy participants. More than half of the studies (that reported study size in the title/abstract) included 100 or fewer participants. CONCLUSION: The field of causal hypotheses of CFS/ME is diverse, and we found that the studies examined all the main categories of possible factors that we had defined a priori. Most studies were not designed to adequately explore causality, rather to establish hypotheses. We need larger studies with stronger study designs to gain better knowledge of causal factors of CFS/ME.

Patient-mediated interventions to improve professional practice.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare professionals are important contributors to healthcare quality and patient safety, but their performance does not always follow recommended clinical practice. There are many approaches to influencing practice among healthcare professionals. These approaches include audit and feedback, reminders, educational materials, educational outreach visits, educational meetings or conferences, use of local opinion leaders, financial incentives, and organisational interventions. In this review, we evaluated the effectiveness of patient-mediated interventions. These interventions are aimed at changing the performance of healthcare professionals through interactions with patients, or through information provided by or to patients. Examples of patient-mediated interventions include 1) patient-reported health information, 2) patient information, 3) patient education, 4) patient feedback about clinical practice, 5) patient decision aids, 6) patients, or patient representatives, being members of a committee or board, and 7) patient-led training or education of healthcare professionals. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of patient-mediated interventions on healthcare professionals' performance (adherence to clinical practice guidelines or recommendations for clinical practice). SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Ovid in March 2018, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in March 2017, and ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry (ICTRP) in September 2017, and OpenGrey, the Grey Literature Report and Google Scholar in October 2017. We also screened the reference lists of included studies and conducted cited reference searches for all included studies in October 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised studies comparing patient-mediated interventions to either usual care or other interventions to improve professional practice. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes using Mantel-Haenszel statistics and the random-effects model. For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) using inverse variance statistics. Two review authors independently assessed the certainty of the evidence (GRADE). MAIN RESULTS: We included 25 studies with a total of 12,268 patients. The number of healthcare professionals included in the studies ranged from 12 to 167 where this was reported. The included studies evaluated four types of patient-mediated interventions: 1) patient-reported health information interventions (for instance information obtained from patients about patients' own health, concerns or needs before a clinical encounter), 2) patient information interventions (for instance, where patients are informed about, or reminded to attend recommended care), 3) patient education interventions (intended to increase patients' knowledge about their condition and options of care, for instance), and 4) patient decision aids (where the patient is provided with information about treatment options including risks and benefits). For each type of patient-mediated intervention a separate meta-analysis was produced.Patient-reported health information interventions probably improve healthcare professionals' adherence to recommended clinical practice (moderate-certainty evidence). We found that for every 100 patients consulted or treated, 26 (95% CI 23 to 30) are in accordance with recommended clinical practice compared to 17 per 100 in the comparison group (no intervention or usual care). We are uncertain about the effect of patient-reported health information interventions on desirable patient health outcomes and patient satisfaction (very low-certainty evidence). Undesirable patient health outcomes and adverse events were not reported in the included studies and resource use was poorly reported.Patient information interventions may improve healthcare professionals' adherence to recommended clinical practice (low-certainty evidence). We found that for every 100 patients consulted or treated, 32 (95% CI 24 to 42) are in accordance with recommended clinical practice compared to 20 per 100 in the comparison group (no intervention or usual care). Patient information interventions may have little or no effect on desirable patient health outcomes and patient satisfaction (low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of patient information interventions on undesirable patient health outcomes because the certainty of the evidence is very low. Adverse events and resource use were not reported in the included studies.Patient education interventions probably improve healthcare professionals' adherence to recommended clinical practice (moderate-certainty evidence). We found that for every 100 patients consulted or treated, 46 (95% CI 39 to 54) are in accordance with recommended clinical practice compared to 35 per 100 in the comparison group (no intervention or usual care). Patient education interventions may slightly increase the number of patients with desirable health outcomes (low-certainty evidence). Undesirable patient health outcomes, patient satisfaction, adverse events and resource use were not reported in the included studies.Patient decision aid interventions may have little or no effect on healthcare professionals' adherence to recommended clinical practice (low-certainty evidence). We found that for every 100 patients consulted or treated, 32 (95% CI 24 to 43) are in accordance with recommended clinical practice compared to 37 per 100 in the comparison group (usual care). Patient health outcomes, patient satisfaction, adverse events and resource use were not reported in the included studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found that two types of patient-mediated interventions, patient-reported health information and patient education, probably improve professional practice by increasing healthcare professionals' adherence to recommended clinical practice (moderate-certainty evidence). We consider the effect to be small to moderate. Other patient-mediated interventions, such as patient information may also improve professional practice (low-certainty evidence). Patient decision aids may make little or no difference to the number of healthcare professionals' adhering to recommended clinical practice (low-certainty evidence).The impact of these interventions on patient health and satisfaction, adverse events and resource use, is more uncertain mostly due to very low certainty evidence or lack of evidence.

Impact of public release of performance data on the behaviour of healthcare consumers and providers.

BACKGROUND: It is becoming increasingly common to publish information about the quality and performance of healthcare organisations and individual professionals. However, we do not know how this information is used, or the extent to which such reporting leads to quality improvement by changing the behaviour of healthcare consumers, providers, and purchasers. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the effects of public release of performance data, from any source, on changing the healthcare utilisation behaviour of healthcare consumers, providers (professionals and organisations), and purchasers of care. In addition, we sought to estimate the effects on healthcare provider performance, patient outcomes, and staff morale. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers on 26 June 2017. We checked reference lists of all included studies to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for randomised or non-randomised trials, interrupted time series, and controlled before-after studies of the effects of publicly releasing data regarding any aspect of the performance of healthcare organisations or professionals. Each study had to report at least one main outcome related to selecting or changing care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened studies for eligibility and extracted data. For each study, we extracted data about the target groups (healthcare consumers, healthcare providers, and healthcare purchasers), performance data, main outcomes (choice of healthcare provider, and improvement by means of changes in care), and other outcomes (awareness, attitude, knowledge of performance data, and costs). Given the substantial degree of clinical and methodological heterogeneity between the studies, we presented the findings for each policy in a structured format, but did not undertake a meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We included 12 studies that analysed data from more than 7570 providers (e.g. professionals and organisations), and a further 3,333,386 clinical encounters (e.g. patient referrals, prescriptions). We included four cluster-randomised trials, one cluster-non-randomised trial, six interrupted time series studies, and one controlled before-after study. Eight studies were undertaken in the USA, and one each in Canada, Korea, China, and The Netherlands. Four studies examined the effect of public release of performance data on consumer healthcare choices, and four on improving quality.There was low-certainty evidence that public release of performance data may make little or no difference to long-term healthcare utilisation by healthcare consumers (3 studies; 18,294 insurance plan beneficiaries), or providers (4 studies; 3,000,000 births, and 67 healthcare providers), or to provider performance (1 study; 82 providers). However, there was also low-certainty evidence to suggest that public release of performance data may slightly improve some patient outcomes (5 studies, 315,092 hospitalisations, and 7502 providers). There was low-certainty evidence from a single study to suggest that public release of performance data may have differential effects on disadvantaged populations. There was no evidence about effects on healthcare utilisation decisions by purchasers, or adverse effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The existing evidence base is inadequate to directly inform policy and practice. Further studies should consider whether public release of performance data can improve patient outcomes, as well as healthcare processes.

A Reporting Tool for Practice Guidelines in Health Care: The RIGHT Statement.

The quality of reporting practice guidelines is often poor, and there is no widely accepted guidance or standards for such reporting in health care. The international RIGHT (Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare) Working Group was established to address this gap. The group followed an existing framework for developing guidelines for health research reporting and the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network approach. It developed a checklist and an explanation and elaboration statement. The RIGHT checklist includes 22 items that are considered essential for good reporting of practice guidelines: basic information (items 1 to 4), background (items 5 to 9), evidence (items 10 to 12), recommendations (items 13 to 15), review and quality assurance (items 16 and 17), funding and declaration and management of interests (items 18 and 19), and other information (items 20 to 22). The RIGHT checklist can assist developers in reporting guidelines, support journal editors and peer reviewers when considering guideline reports, and help health care practitioners understand and implement a guideline.

The GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework for health system and public health decisions.

OBJECTIVE: To describe a framework for people making and using evidence-informed health system and public health recommendations and decisions. BACKGROUND: We developed the GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework for health system and public health decisions as part of the DECIDE project, in which we simultaneously developed frameworks for these and other types of healthcare decisions, including clinical recommendations, coverage decisions and decisions about diagnostic tests. DEVELOPING THE FRAMEWORK: Building on GRADE EtD tables, we used an iterative approach, including brainstorming, consultation of the literature and with stakeholders, and an international survey of policy-makers. We applied the framework to diverse examples, conducted workshops and user testing with health system and public health guideline developers and policy-makers, and observed and tested its use in real-life guideline panels. FINDINGS: All the GRADE EtD frameworks share the same basic structure, including sections for formulating the question, making an assessment and drawing conclusions. Criteria listed in the assessment section of the health system and public health framework cover the important factors for making these types of decisions; in addition to the effects and economic impact of an option, the priority of the problem, the impact of the option on equity, and its acceptability and feasibility are important considerations that can inform both whether and how to implement an option. Because health system and public health interventions are often complex, detailed implementation considerations should be made when making a decision. The certainty of the evidence is often low or very low, but decision-makers must still act. Monitoring and evaluation are therefore often important considerations for these types of decisions. We illustrate the different components of the EtD framework for health system and public health decisions by presenting their application in a framework adapted from a real-life guideline. DISCUSSION: This framework provides a structured and transparent approach to support policy-making informed by the best available research evidence, while making the basis for decisions accessible to those whom they will affect. The health system and public health EtD framework can also be used to facilitate dissemination of recommendations and enable decision-makers to adopt, and adapt, recommendations or decisions.

Delivery arrangements for health systems in low-income countries: an overview of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Delivery arrangements include changes in who receives care and when, who provides care, the working conditions of those who provide care, coordination of care amongst different providers, where care is provided, the use of information and communication technology to deliver care, and quality and safety systems. How services are delivered can have impacts on the effectiveness, efficiency and equity of health systems. This broad overview of the findings of systematic reviews can help policymakers and other stakeholders identify strategies for addressing problems and improve the delivery of services. OBJECTIVES: To provide an overview of the available evidence from up-to-date systematic reviews about the effects of delivery arrangements for health systems in low-income countries. Secondary objectives include identifying needs and priorities for future evaluations and systematic reviews on delivery arrangements and informing refinements of the framework for delivery arrangements outlined in the review. METHODS: We searched Health Systems Evidence in November 2010 and PDQ-Evidence up to 17 December 2016 for systematic reviews. We did not apply any date, language or publication status limitations in the searches. We included well-conducted systematic reviews of studies that assessed the effects of delivery arrangements on patient outcomes (health and health behaviours), the quality or utilisation of healthcare services, resource use, healthcare provider outcomes (such as sick leave), or social outcomes (such as poverty or employment) and that were published after April 2005. We excluded reviews with limitations important enough to compromise the reliability of the findings. Two overview authors independently screened reviews, extracted data, and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. We prepared SUPPORT Summaries for eligible reviews, including key messages, 'Summary of findings' tables (using GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence), and assessments of the relevance of findings to low-income countries. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 7272 systematic reviews and included 51 of them in this overview. We judged 6 of the 51 reviews to have important methodological limitations and the other 45 to have only minor limitations. We grouped delivery arrangements into eight categories. Some reviews provided more than one comparison and were in more than one category. Across these categories, the following intervention were effective; that is, they have desirable effects on at least one outcome with moderate- or high-certainty evidence and no moderate- or high-certainty evidence of undesirable effects. Who receives care and when: queuing strategies and antenatal care to groups of mothers. Who provides care: lay health workers for caring for people with hypertension, lay health workers to deliver care for mothers and children or infectious diseases, lay health workers to deliver community-based neonatal care packages, midlevel health professionals for abortion care, social support to pregnant women at risk, midwife-led care for childbearing women, non-specialist providers in mental health and neurology, and physician-nurse substitution. Coordination of care: hospital clinical pathways, case management for people living with HIV and AIDS, interactive communication between primary care doctors and specialists, hospital discharge planning, adding a service to an existing service and integrating delivery models, referral from primary to secondary care, physician-led versus nurse-led triage in emergency departments, and team midwifery. Where care is provided: high-volume institutions, home-based care (with or without multidisciplinary team) for people living with HIV and AIDS, home-based management of malaria, home care for children with acute physical conditions, community-based interventions for childhood diarrhoea and pneumonia, out-of-facility HIV and reproductive health services for youth, and decentralised HIV care. Information and communication technology: mobile phone messaging for patients with long-term illnesses, mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments, mobile phone messaging to promote adherence to antiretroviral therapy, women carrying their own case notes in pregnancy, interventions to improve childhood vaccination. Quality and safety systems: decision support with clinical information systems for people living with HIV/AIDS. Complex interventions (cutting across delivery categories and other health system arrangements): emergency obstetric referral interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: A wide range of strategies have been evaluated for improving delivery arrangements in low-income countries, using sound systematic review methods in both Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews. These reviews have assessed a range of outcomes. Most of the available evidence focuses on who provides care, where care is provided and coordination of care. For all the main categories of delivery arrangements, we identified gaps in primary research related to uncertainty about the applicability of the evidence to low-income countries, low- or very low-certainty evidence or a lack of studies.

Tailored interventions to address determinants of practice.

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.

Developing and refining the methods for a 'one-stop shop' for research evidence about health systems.

BACKGROUND: Policymakers, stakeholders and researchers have not been able to find research evidence about health systems using an easily understood taxonomy of topics, know when they have conducted a comprehensive search of the many types of research evidence relevant to them, or rapidly identify decision-relevant information in their search results. METHODS: To address these gaps, we developed an approach to building a 'one-stop shop' for research evidence about health systems. We developed a taxonomy of health system topics and iteratively refined it by drawing on existing categorization schemes and by using it to categorize progressively larger bundles of research evidence. We identified systematic reviews, systematic review protocols, and review-derived products through searches of Medline, hand searches of several databases indexing systematic reviews, hand searches of journals, and continuous scanning of listservs and websites. We developed an approach to providing 'added value' to existing content (e.g., coding systematic reviews according to the countries in which included studies were conducted) and to expanding the types of evidence eligible for inclusion (e.g., economic evaluations and health system descriptions). Lastly, we developed an approach to continuously updating the online one-stop shop in seven supported languages. RESULTS: The taxonomy is organized by governance, financial, and delivery arrangements and by implementation strategies. The 'one-stop shop', called Health Systems Evidence, contains a comprehensive inventory of evidence briefs, overviews of systematic reviews, systematic reviews, systematic review protocols, registered systematic review titles, economic evaluations and costing studies, health reform descriptions and health system descriptions, and many types of added-value coding. It is continuously updated and new content is regularly translated into Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish. CONCLUSIONS: Policymakers and stakeholders can now easily access and use a wide variety of types of research evidence about health systems to inform decision-making and advocacy. Researchers and research funding agencies can use Health Systems Evidence to identify gaps in the current stock of research evidence and domains that could benefit from primary research, systematic reviews, and review overviews.

Growing literature, stagnant science? Systematic review, meta-regression and cumulative analysis of audit and feedback interventions in health care.

BACKGROUND: This paper extends the findings of the Cochrane systematic review of audit and feedback on professional practice to explore the estimate of effect over time and examine whether new trials have added to knowledge regarding how optimize the effectiveness of audit and feedback. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and EMBASE for randomized trials of audit and feedback compared to usual care, with objectively measured outcomes assessing compliance with intended professional practice. Two reviewers independently screened articles and abstracted variables related to the intervention, the context, and trial methodology. The median absolute risk difference in compliance with intended professional practice was determined for each study, and adjusted for baseline performance. The effect size across studies was recalculated as studies were added to the cumulative analysis. Meta-regressions were conducted for studies published up to 2002, 2006, and 2010 in which characteristics of the intervention, the recipients, and trial risk of bias were tested as predictors of effect size. RESULTS: Of the 140 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) included in the Cochrane review, 98 comparisons from 62 studies met the criteria for inclusion. The cumulative analysis indicated that the effect size became stable in 2003 after 51 comparisons from 30 trials. Cumulative meta-regressions suggested new trials are contributing little further information regarding the impact of common effect modifiers. Feedback appears most effective when: delivered by a supervisor or respected colleague; presented frequently; featuring both specific goals and action-plans; aiming to decrease the targeted behavior; baseline performance is lower; and recipients are non-physicians. DISCUSSION: There is substantial evidence that audit and feedback can effectively improve quality of care, but little evidence of progress in the field. There are opportunity costs for patients, providers, and health care systems when investigators test quality improvement interventions that do not build upon, or contribute toward, extant knowledge.

Determinants of adherence to recommendations for depressed elderly patients in primary care: a multi-methods study.

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.