Implementation interventions to promote the uptake of evidence-based practices in stroke rehabilitation.

BACKGROUND: Rehabilitation based upon research evidence gives stroke survivors the best chance of recovery. There is substantial research to guide practice in stroke rehabilitation, yet uptake of evidence by healthcare professionals is typically slow and patients often do not receive evidence-based care. Implementation interventions are an important means to translate knowledge from research to practice and thus optimise the care and outcomes for stroke survivors. A synthesis of research evidence is required to guide the selection and use of implementation interventions in stroke rehabilitation. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of implementation interventions to promote the uptake of evidence-based practices (including clinical assessments and treatments recommended in evidence-based guidelines) in stroke rehabilitation and to assess the effects of implementation interventions tailored to address identified barriers to change compared to non-tailored interventions in stroke rehabilitation. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and eight other databases to 17 October 2019. We searched OpenGrey, performed citation tracking and reference checking for included studies and contacted authors of included studies to obtain further information and identify potentially relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included individual and cluster randomised trials, non-randomised trials, interrupted time series studies and controlled before-after studies comparing an implementation intervention to no intervention or to another implementation approach in stroke rehabilitation. Participants were qualified healthcare professionals working in stroke rehabilitation and the patients they cared for. Studies were considered for inclusion regardless of date, language or publication status. Main outcomes were healthcare professional adherence to recommended treatment, patient adherence to recommended treatment, patient health status and well-being, healthcare professional intention and satisfaction, resource use outcomes and adverse effects. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence using GRADE. The primary comparison was any implementation intervention compared to no intervention. MAIN RESULTS: Nine cluster randomised trials (12,428 patient participants) and three ongoing trials met our selection criteria. Five trials (8865 participants) compared an implementation intervention to no intervention, three trials (3150 participants) compared one implementation intervention to another implementation intervention, and one three-arm trial (413 participants) compared two different implementation interventions to no intervention. Eight trials investigated multifaceted interventions; educational meetings and educational materials were the most common components. Six trials described tailoring the intervention content to identified barriers to change. Two trials focused on evidence-based stroke rehabilitation in the acute setting, four focused on the subacute inpatient setting and three trials focused on stroke rehabilitation in the community setting. We are uncertain if implementation interventions improve healthcare professional adherence to evidence-based practice in stroke rehabilitation compared with no intervention as the certainty of the evidence was very low (risk ratio (RR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 2.64; 2 trials, 39 clusters, 1455 patient participants; I2 = 0%). Low-certainty evidence indicates implementation interventions in stroke rehabilitation may lead to little or no difference in patient adherence to recommended treatment (number of recommended performed outdoor journeys adjusted mean difference (MD) 0.5, 95% CI -1.8 to 2.8; 1 trial, 21 clusters, 100 participants) and patient psychological well-being (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.02, 95% CI -0.54 to 0.50; 2 trials, 65 clusters, 1273 participants; I2 = 0%) compared with no intervention. Moderate-certainty evidence indicates implementation interventions in stroke rehabilitation probably lead to little or no difference in patient health-related quality of life (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.05; 2 trials, 65 clusters, 1242 participants; I2 = 0%) and activities of daily living (MD 0.29, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.73; 2 trials, 65 clusters, 1272 participants; I2 = 0%) compared with no intervention. No studies reported the effects of implementation interventions in stroke rehabilitation on healthcare professional intention to change behaviour or satisfaction. Five studies reported economic outcomes, with one study reporting cost-effectiveness of the implementation intervention. However, this was assessed at high risk of bias. The other four studies did not demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of interventions. Tailoring interventions to identified barriers did not alter results. We are uncertain of the effect of one implementation intervention versus another given the limited very low-certainty evidence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain if implementation interventions improve healthcare professional adherence to evidence-based practice in stroke rehabilitation compared with no intervention as the certainty of the evidence is very low.

Cancer related fatigue: implementing guidelines for optimal management.

BACKGROUND: Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is a key concern for people living with cancer and can impair physical functioning and activities of daily living. Evidence-based guidelines for CRF are available, yet inconsistently implemented globally. This study aimed to identify barriers and enablers to applying a cancer fatigue guideline and to derive implementation strategies. METHODS: A mixed-method study explored the feasibility of implementing the CRF guideline developed by the Canadian Association for Psychosocial Oncology (CAPO). Health professionals, managers and consumers from different practice settings participated in a modified Delphi study with two survey rounds. A reference group informed the design of the study including the surveys. The first round focused on guideline characteristics, compatibility with current practice and experience, and behaviour change. The second survey built upon and triangulated the first round. RESULTS: Forty-five health practitioners and managers, and 68 cancer survivors completed the surveys. More than 75% of participants endorsed the CAPO cancer related fatigue guidelines. Some respondents perceived a lack of resources for accessible and expert fatigue management services. Further barriers to guideline implementation included complexity, limited practical details for some elements, and lack of clinical tools such as assessment tools or patient education materials. Recommendations to enhance guideline applicability centred around four main themes: (1) balancing the level of detail in the CAPO guideline with ease of use, (2) defining roles of different professional disciplines in CRF management, (3) how best to integrate CRF management into policy and practice, (4) how best to ensure a consumer-focused approach to CRF management. CONCLUSIONS: Translating current knowledge on optimal management of CRF into clinical practice can be enhanced by the adoption of valid guidelines. This study indicates that it is feasible to adopt the CAPO guidelines. Clinical application may be further enhanced with guideline adaptation, professional education and integration with existing practices.

Cancer-related fatigue: appraising evidence-based guidelines for screening, assessment and management.

PURPOSE: There is inconsistent management of cancer-related fatigue (CRF) by health professionals worldwide. This research aims to identify the most appropriate guidelines for the management of cancer-related fatigue. METHODS: A systematic search of international literature identified evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for CRF. Four reviewers independently appraised the highest quality guidelines using the AGREE-II instrument and National Heath and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) guideline standards. RESULTS: Five guidelines met the inclusion criteria. Of these, the 2015 Canadian Association of Psychosocial Oncology (CAPO) CRF guidelines and the 2014 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) fatigue guidelines for cancer survivors were selected for in-depth appraisal. The CAPO guideline scored higher than the ASCO for five domains of the AGREE-II. For one domain, the differences were statistically significant (p ≤ 0.05). The CAPO guideline met 37 of 47 NHMRC mandatory guideline standards and the ASCO guideline met 20. The difference in the proportion of standards met was statistically significant for one domain (p ≤ 0.05). Both guidelines had low scores for applicability and implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Currently, the CAPO guideline for cancer-related fatigue has the strongest evidence for use. To enhance implementation, further strategies for guideline dissemination and application are needed.

Cancer-related fatigue: a survey of health practitioner knowledge and practice.

PURPOSE: This study aims to identify the current practices of health professionals in the assessment and treatment of cancer-related fatigue (CRF). METHODS: Health professionals working with oncology clients participated in an electronic survey distributed via professional associations and oncology societies. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-nine professionals from nursing, medical, and allied health disciplines participated in an electronic survey. Overall, there was a perception that CRF was inadequately managed at some facilities. Routine fatigue screening processes in the workplace were reported by more than half of participants; however, less than one quarter used a clinical guideline or conducted in-depth CRF assessments. Awareness of interventions for CRF varied amongst participants with one quarter able to list five appropriate interventions for cancer-related fatigue. Access to services for managing fatigue was inconsistent across service types, with post-treatment triage a high priority for CRF in some organisations yet not others. Participants identified a need for improved guidelines, enhanced expertise and better access to services for people with CRF. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for further education in CRF management for a range of health disciplines in oncology and additional resources to facilitate translation of CRF guidelines into clinical practice.