Printed educational messages fail to increase use of thiazides as first-line medication for hypertension in primary care: a cluster randomized controlled trial [ISRCTN72772651].

BACKGROUND: Evidence on the effectiveness of printed educational messages in contributing to increasing evidence-based clinical practice is contradictory. Nonetheless, these messages flood physician offices, in an attempt to promote treatments that can reduce costs while improving patient outcomes. This study evaluated the ability of printed educational messages to promote the choice of thiazides as the first-line treatment for individuals newly diagnosed with hypertension, a practice supported by good evidence and included in guidelines, and one which could reduce costs to the health care system. METHODS: The study uses a pragmatic, cluster randomized controlled trial (randomized by physician practice group). SETTING: The setting involves all Ontario general/family practice physicians. Messages advising the use of thiazides as the first-line treatment of hypertension were mailed to each physician in conjunction with a widely read professional newsletter. Physicians were randomized to receive differing versions of printed educational messages: an "insert" (two-page evidence-based article) and/or one of two different versions of an "outsert" (short, directive message stapled to the outside of the newsletter). One outsert was developed without an explicit theory and one with messages developed targeting factors from the theory of planned behaviour or neither (newsletter only, with no mention of thiazides). The percentage of patients aged over 65 and newly diagnosed with hypertension who were prescribed a thiazide as the sole initial prescription medication. The effect of the intervention was estimated using a logistic regression model estimated using generalized estimating equation methods to account for the clustering of patients within physician practices. RESULTS: Four thousand five hundred four physicians (with 23,508 patients) were randomized, providing 97 % power to detect a 5 % absolute increase in prescription of thiazides. No intervention effect was detected. Thiazides were prescribed to 27.6 % of the patients who saw control physicians, 27.4 % for the insert, 26.8 % for the outsert and 28.3 % of the patients who saw insert + outsert physicians, p = 0.54. CONCLUSIONS: The study conclusively failed to demonstrate any impact of the printed educational messages on increasing prescribing of thiazide diuretics for first-line management of hypertension. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN72772651.

A theory-based process evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial of printed educational messages to increase primary care physicians' prescription of thiazide diuretics for hypertension [ISRCTN72772651].

BACKGROUND: Pragmatic trials of implementation interventions focus on evaluating whether an intervention changes professional behaviour under real-world conditions rather than investigating the mechanism through which change occurs. Theory-based process evaluations conducted alongside pragmatic randomised trials address this by assessing whether the intervention changes theoretical constructs proposed to mediate change. The Ontario Printed Educational Materials (PEM) cluster trial was designed to increase family physicians' guideline-recommended prescription of thiazide diuretics. The trial found no intervention effect. Using the theory of planned behaviour (TPB), we hypothesised that changes in thiazide prescribing would be reflected in changes in intention, consistent with changes in attitude and subjective norm, with no change to their perceived behavioural control (PBC), and tested this alongside the RCT. METHODS: We developed and sent TPB postal questionnaires to a random sub-sample of family physicians in each trial arm 2 months before and 6 months after dissemination of the PEMs. We used analysis of covariance to test for group differences using a 2 × 3 factorial design. We content-analysed an open-ended question about perceived barriers to thiazide prescription. Using control group data, we tested whether baseline measures of TPB constructs predicted self-reported thiazide prescribing at follow-up. RESULTS: Four hundred twenty-six physicians completed pre- and post-intervention questionnaires. Baseline scores on measures of TPB constructs were high: intention mean = 5.9 out of 7 (SD = 1.4), attitude mean = 5.8 (SD = 1.1), subjective norm mean = 5.8 (SD = 1.1) and PBC mean = 6.2 (SD = 1.0). The arms did not significantly differ post-intervention on any of the theory-based constructs, suggesting a possible ceiling effect. Content analysis of perceived barriers suggested post-intentional barriers to prescribing thiazides most often focused on specific patient clinical characteristics and potential side effects. Baseline intention (ß = 0.63, p < 0.01) but not PBC (ß = 0.04, p = 0.78) predicted 42.6 % of the variance in self-reported behaviour at follow-up in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Congruent with the Ontario Printed Educational Messages trial results and aligned with the TPB, we saw no impact of the intervention on any TPB constructs. The theoretical basis of this evaluation suggests possible explanations for the failure of the PEM intervention to change professional behaviour, which can directly inform the design and content of future theory-based PEM interventions to change professional behaviour. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, Canada ISRCTN72772651.

Tools developed and disseminated by guideline producers to promote the uptake of their guidelines.

BACKGROUND: The uptake of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) is inconsistent, despite their potential to improve the quality of health care and patient outcomes. Some guideline producers have addressed this problem by developing tools to encourage faster adoption of new guidelines. This review focuses on the effectiveness of tools developed and disseminated by guideline producers to improve the uptake of their CPGs. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of implementation tools developed and disseminated by guideline producers, which accompany or follow the publication of a CPG, to promote uptake. A secondary objective is to determine which approaches to guideline implementation are most effective. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); NHS Economic Evaluation Database, HTA Database; MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process and other non-indexed citations; Embase; PsycINFO; CINAHL; Dissertations and Theses, ProQuest; Index to Theses; Science Citation Index Expanded, ISI Web of Knowledge; Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science, ISI Web of Knowledge; Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC), and NHS Evidence up to February 2016. We also searched trials registers, reference lists of included studies and relevant websites. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs, controlled before-and-after studies (CBAs) and interrupted time series (ITS) studies evaluating the effects of guideline implementation tools developed by recognised guideline producers to improve the uptake of their own guidelines. The guideline could target any clinical area. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of each included study using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' criteria. We graded our confidence in the evidence using the approach recommended by the GRADE working group. The clinical conditions targeted and the implementation tools used were too heterogenous to combine data for meta-analysis. We report the median absolute risk difference (ARD) and interquartile range (IQR) for the main outcome of adherence to guidelines. MAIN RESULTS: We included four cluster-RCTs that were conducted in the Netherlands, France, the USA and Canada. These studies evaluated the effects of tools developed by national guideline producers to implement their CPGs. The implementation tools evaluated targeted healthcare professionals; none targeted healthcare organisations or patients.One study used two short educational workshops tailored to barriers. In three studies the intervention consisted of the provision of paper-based educational materials, order forms or reminders, or both. The clinical condition, type of healthcare professional, and behaviour targeted by the CPG varied across studies.Two of the four included studies reported data on healthcare professionals' adherence to guidelines. A guideline tool developed by the producers of a guideline probably leads to increased adherence to the guidelines; median ARD (IQR) was 0.135 (0.115 and 0.159 for the two studies respectively) at an average four-week follow-up (moderate certainty evidence), which indicates a median 13.5% greater adherence to guidelines in the intervention group. Providing healthcare professionals with a tool to improve implementation of a guideline may lead to little or no difference in costs to the health service. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Implementation tools developed by recognised guideline producers probably lead to improved healthcare professionals' adherence to guidelines in the management of non-specific low back pain and ordering thyroid-function tests. There are limited data on the relative costs of implementing these interventions.There are no studies evaluating the effectiveness of interventions targeting the organisation of care (e.g. benchmarking tools, costing templates, etc.), or for mass media interventions. We could not draw any conclusions about our second objective, the comparative effectiveness of implementation tools, due to the small number of studies, the heterogeneity between interventions, and the clinical conditions that were targeted.

A primary care Web-based Intervention Modeling Experiment replicated behavior changes seen in earlier paper-based experiment.

OBJECTIVES: Intervention Modeling Experiments (IMEs) are a way of developing and testing behavior change interventions before a trial. We aimed to test this methodology in a Web-based IME that replicated the trial component of an earlier, paper-based IME. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Three-arm, Web-based randomized evaluation of two interventions (persuasive communication and action plan) and a "no intervention" comparator. The interventions were designed to reduce the number of antibiotic prescriptions in the management of uncomplicated upper respiratory tract infection. General practitioners (GPs) were invited to complete an online questionnaire and eight clinical scenarios where an antibiotic might be considered. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-nine GPs completed the questionnaire. GPs receiving the persuasive communication did not prescribe an antibiotic in 0.70 more scenarios (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.17-1.24) than those in the control arm. For the action plan, GPs did not prescribe an antibiotic in 0.63 (95% CI = 0.11-1.15) more scenarios than those in the control arm. Unlike the earlier IME, behavioral intention was unaffected by the interventions; this may be due to a smaller sample size than intended. CONCLUSIONS: A Web-based IME largely replicated the findings of an earlier paper-based study, providing some grounds for confidence in the IME methodology.

Understanding effects in reviews of implementation interventions using the Theoretical Domains Framework.

BACKGROUND: Behavioural theory can be used to better understand the effects of behaviour change interventions targeting healthcare professional behaviour to improve quality of care. However, the explicit use of theory is rarely reported despite interventions inevitably involving at least an implicit idea of what factors to target to implement change. There is a quality of care gap in the post-fracture investigation (bone mineral density (BMD) scanning) and management (bisphosphonate prescription) of patients at risk of osteoporosis. We aimed to use the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) within a systematic review of interventions to improve quality of care in post-fracture investigation. Our objectives were to explore which theoretical factors the interventions in the review may have been targeting and how this might be related to the size of the effect on rates of BMD scanning and osteoporosis treatment with bisphosphonate medication. METHODS: A behavioural scientist and a clinician independently coded TDF domains in intervention and control groups. Quantitative analyses explored the relationship between intervention effect size and total number of domains targeted, and as number of different domains targeted. RESULTS: Nine randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (10 interventions) were analysed. The five theoretical domains most frequently coded as being targeted by the interventions in the review included "memory, attention and decision processes", "knowledge", "environmental context and resources", "social influences" and "beliefs about consequences". Each intervention targeted a combination of at least four of these five domains. Analyses identified an inverse relationship between both number of times and number of different domains coded and the effect size for BMD scanning but not for bisphosphonate prescription, suggesting that the more domains the intervention targeted, the lower the observed effect size. CONCLUSIONS: When explicit use of theory to inform interventions is absent, it is possible to retrospectively identify the likely targeted factors using theoretical frameworks such as the TDF. In osteoporosis management, this suggested that several likely determinants of healthcare professional behaviour appear not yet to have been considered in implementation interventions. This approach may serve as a useful basis for using theory-based frameworks such as the TDF to retrospectively identify targeted factors within systematic reviews of implementation interventions in other implementation contexts.

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.

Are multifaceted interventions more effective than single-component interventions in changing health-care professionals' behaviours? An overview of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: One of the greatest challenges in healthcare is how to best translate research evidence into clinical practice, which includes how to change health-care professionals' behaviours. A commonly held view is that multifaceted interventions are more effective than single-component interventions. The purpose of this study was to conduct an overview of systematic reviews to evaluate the effectiveness of multifaceted interventions in comparison to single-component interventions in changing health-care professionals' behaviour in clinical settings. METHODS: The Rx for Change database, which consists of quality-appraised systematic reviews of interventions to change health-care professional behaviour, was used to identify systematic reviews for the overview. Dual, independent screening and data extraction was conducted. Included reviews used three different approaches (of varying methodological robustness) to evaluate the effectiveness of multifaceted interventions: (1) effect size/dose-response statistical analyses, (2) direct (non-statistical) comparisons of multifaceted to single interventions and (3) indirect comparisons of multifaceted to single interventions. RESULTS: Twenty-five reviews were included in the overview. Three reviews provided effect size/dose-response statistical analyses of the effectiveness of multifaceted interventions; no statistical evidence of a relationship between the number of intervention components and the effect size was found. Eight reviews reported direct (non-statistical) comparisons of multifaceted to single-component interventions; four of these reviews found multifaceted interventions to be generally effective compared to single interventions, while the remaining four reviews found that multifaceted interventions had either mixed effects or were generally ineffective compared to single interventions. Twenty-three reviews indirectly compared the effectiveness of multifaceted to single interventions; nine of which also reported either a statistical (dose-response) analysis (N = 2) or a non-statistical direct comparison (N = 7). The majority (N = 15) of reviews reporting indirect comparisons of multifaceted to single interventions showed similar effectiveness for multifaceted and single interventions when compared to controls. Of the remaining eight reviews, six found single interventions to be generally effective while multifaceted had mixed effectiveness. CONCLUSION: This overview of systematic reviews offers no compelling evidence that multifaceted interventions are more effective than single-component interventions.

Looking inside the black box: results of a theory-based process evaluation exploring the results of a randomized controlled trial of printed educational messages to increase primary care physicians' diabetic retinopathy referrals [Trial registration number ISRCTN72772651].

BACKGROUND: Theory-based process evaluations conducted alongside randomized controlled trials provide the opportunity to investigate hypothesized mechanisms of action of interventions, helping to build a cumulative knowledge base and to inform the interpretation of individual trial outcomes. Our objective was to identify the underlying causal mechanisms in a cluster randomized trial of the effectiveness of printed educational materials (PEMs) to increase referral for diabetic retinopathy screening. We hypothesized that the PEMs would increase physicians' intention to refer patients for retinal screening by strengthening their attitude and subjective norm, but not their perceived behavioral control. METHODS: Design: A theory based process evaluation alongside the Ontario Printed Educational Material (OPEM) cluster randomized trial. Postal surveys based on the Theory of Planned Behavior were sent to a random sample of trial participants two months before and six months after they received the intervention. Setting: Family physicians in Ontario, Canada. Participants: 1,512 family physicians (252 per intervention group) from the OPEM trial were invited to participate, and 31.3% (473/1512) responded at time one and time two. The final sample comprised 437 family physicians fully completing questionnaires at both time points. Main Outcome Measures: Primary: behavioral intention related to referring patient for retinopathy screening; secondary: attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control. RESULTS: At baseline, family physicians reported positive intention, attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control to advise patients about retinopathy screening suggesting limited opportunities for improvement in these constructs. There were no significant differences on intention, attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control following the intervention. Respondents also reported additional physician- and patient-related factors perceived to influence whether patients received retinopathy screening. CONCLUSIONS: Lack of change in the primary and secondary theory-based outcomes provides an explanation for the lack of observed effect of the main OPEM trial. High baseline levels of intention to advise patients to attend retinopathy screening suggest that post-intentional and other factors may explain gaps in care. Process evaluations based on behavioral theory can provide replicable and generalizable insights to aid interpretation of randomized controlled trials of complex interventions to change health professional behavior. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN72772651.

Improving Diabetes care through Examining, Advising, and prescribing (IDEA): protocol for a theory-based cluster randomised controlled trial of a multiple behaviour change intervention aimed at primary healthcare professionals.

BACKGROUND: New clinical research findings may require clinicians to change their behaviour to provide high-quality care to people with type 2 diabetes, likely requiring them to change multiple different clinical behaviours. The present study builds on findings from a UK-wide study of theory-based behavioural and organisational factors associated with prescribing, advising, and examining consistent with high-quality diabetes care. AIM: To develop and evaluate the effectiveness and cost of an intervention to improve multiple behaviours in clinicians involved in delivering high-quality care for type 2 diabetes. DESIGN/METHODS: We will conduct a two-armed cluster randomised controlled trial in 44 general practices in the North East of England to evaluate a theory-based behaviour change intervention. We will target improvement in six underperformed clinical behaviours highlighted in quality standards for type 2 diabetes: prescribing for hypertension; prescribing for glycaemic control; providing physical activity advice; providing nutrition advice; providing on-going education; and ensuring that feet have been examined. The primary outcome will be the proportion of patients appropriately prescribed and examined (using anonymised computer records), and advised (using anonymous patient surveys) at 12 months. We will use behaviour change techniques targeting motivational, volitional, and impulsive factors that we have previously demonstrated to be predictive of multiple health professional behaviours involved in high-quality type 2 diabetes care. We will also investigate whether the intervention was delivered as designed (fidelity) by coding audiotaped workshops and interventionist delivery reports, and operated as hypothesised (process evaluation) by analysing responses to theory-based postal questionnaires. In addition, we will conduct post-trial qualitative interviews with practice teams to further inform the process evaluation, and a post-trial economic analysis to estimate the costs of the intervention and cost of service use. DISCUSSION: Consistent with UK Medical Research Council guidance and building on previous development research, this pragmatic cluster randomised trial will evaluate the effectiveness of a theory-based complex intervention focusing on changing multiple clinical behaviours to improve quality of diabetes care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN66498413.

Selective decontamination of the digestive tract in critically ill patients treated in intensive care units: a mixed-methods feasibility study (the SuDDICU study).

BACKGROUND: Hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) are a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Critically ill patients in intensive care units (ICUs) are particularly susceptible to these infections. One intervention that has gained much attention in reducing HAIs is selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD). SDD involves the application of topical non-absorbable antibiotics to the oropharynx and stomach and a short course of intravenous (i.v.) antibiotics. SDD may reduce infections and improve mortality, but has not been widely adopted in the UK or internationally. Hence, there is a need to identify the reasons for low uptake and whether or not further clinical research is needed before wider implementation would be considered appropriate. OBJECTIVES: The project objectives were to (1) identify and describe the SDD intervention, (2) identify views about the evidence base, (3) identify acceptability of further research and (4) identify feasibility of further randomised controlled trials (RCTs). DESIGN: A four-stage approach involving (1) case studies of two ICUs in which SDD is delivered including observations, interviews and documentary analysis, (2) a three-round Delphi study for in-depth investigation of clinicians' views, including semi-structured interviews and two iterations of questionnaires with structured feedback, (3) a nationwide online survey of consultants in intensive care medicine and clinical microbiology and (4) semistructured interviews with international clinical triallists to identify the feasibility of further research. SETTING: Case studies were set in two UK ICUs. Other stages of this research were conducted by telephone and online with NHS staff working in ICUs. PARTICIPANTS: (1) Staff involved in SDD adoption or delivery in two UK ICUs, (2) ICU experts (intensive care consultants, clinical microbiologists, hospital pharmacists and ICU clinical leads), (3) all intensive care consultants and clinical microbiologists in the UK with responsibility for patients in ICUs were invited and (4) international triallists, selected from their research profiles in intensive care, clinical trials and/or implementation trials. INTERVENTIONS: SDD involves the application of topical non-absorbable antibiotics to the oropharynx and stomach and a short course of i.v. antibiotics. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Levels of support for, or opposition to, SDD in UK ICUs; views about the SDD evidence base and about barriers to implementation; and feasibility of further SDD research (e.g. likely participation rates). RESULTS: (1) The two case studies identified complexity in the interplay of clinical and behavioural components of SDD, involving multiple staff. However, from the perspective of individual staff, delivery of SDD was regarded as simple and straightforward. (2) The Delphi study (n = 42) identified (a) specific barriers to SDD implementation, (b) uncertainty about the evidence base and (c) bimodal distributions for key variables, e.g. support for, or opposition to, SDD. (3) The national survey (n = 468) identified uncertainty about the effect of SDD on antimicrobial resistance, infection rates, mortality and cost-effectiveness. Most participants would participate in further SDD research. (4) The triallist interviews (n = 10) focused largely on the substantial challenges of conducting a large, multinational clinical effectiveness trial. CONCLUSIONS: There was considerable uncertainty about possible benefits and harms of SDD. Further large-scale clinical effectiveness trials of SDD in ICUs may be required to address these uncertainties, especially relating to antimicrobial resistance. There was a general willingness to participate in a future effectiveness RCT of SDD. However, support was not unanimous. Future research should address the barriers to acceptance and participation in any trial. There was some, but a low level of, interest in adoption of SDD, or studies to encourage implementation of SDD into practice. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 18, No. 25. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Reflective and automatic processes in health care professional behaviour: a dual process model tested across multiple behaviours.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians' behaviours require deliberate decision-making in complex contexts and may involve both impulsive (automatic) and reflective (motivational and volitional) processes. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to test a dual process model applied to clinician behaviours in their management of type 2 diabetes. METHODS: The design used six nested prospective correlational studies. Questionnaires were sent to general practitioners and nurses in 99 UK primary care practices, measuring reflective (intention, action planning and coping planning) and impulsive (automaticity) predictors for six guideline-recommended behaviours: blood pressure prescribing (N = 335), prescribing for glycemic control (N = 288), providing diabetes-related education (N = 346), providing weight advice (N = 417), providing self-management advice (N = 332) and examining the feet (N = 218). RESULTS: Respondent retention was high. A dual process model was supported for prescribing behaviours, weight advice, and examining the feet. A sequential reflective process was supported for blood pressure prescribing, self-management and weight advice, and diabetes-related education. CONCLUSIONS: Reflective and impulsive processes predict behaviour. Quality improvement interventions should consider both reflective and impulsive approaches to behaviour change.

Understanding diagnosis and management of dementia and guideline implementation in general practice: a qualitative study using the theoretical domains framework.

BACKGROUND: Dementia is a growing problem, causing substantial burden for patients, their families, and society. General practitioners (GPs) play an important role in diagnosing and managing dementia; however, there are gaps between recommended and current practice. The aim of this study was to explore GPs' reported practice in diagnosing and managing dementia and to describe, in theoretical terms, the proposed explanations for practice that was and was not consistent with evidence-based guidelines. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with GPs in Victoria, Australia. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) guided data collection and analysis. Interviews explored the factors hindering and enabling achievement of 13 recommended behaviours. Data were analysed using content and thematic analysis. This paper presents an in-depth description of the factors influencing two behaviours, assessing co-morbid depression using a validated tool, and conducting a formal cognitive assessment using a validated scale. RESULTS: A total of 30 GPs were interviewed. Most GPs reported that they did not assess for co-morbid depression using a validated tool as per recommended guidance. Barriers included the belief that depression can be adequately assessed using general clinical indicators and that validated tools provide little additional information (theoretical domain of 'Beliefs about consequences'); discomfort in using validated tools ('Emotion'), possibly due to limited training and confidence ('Skills'; 'Beliefs about capabilities'); limited awareness of the need for, and forgetting to conduct, a depression assessment ('Knowledge'; 'Memory, attention and decision processes'). Most reported practising in a manner consistent with the recommendation that a formal cognitive assessment using a validated scale be undertaken. Key factors enabling this were having an awareness of the need to conduct a cognitive assessment ('Knowledge'); possessing the necessary skills and confidence ('Skills'; 'Beliefs about capabilities'); and having adequate time and resources ('Environmental context and resources'). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to our knowledge to use a theoretical approach to investigate the barriers and enablers to guideline-recommended diagnosis and management of dementia in general practice. It has identified key factors likely to explain GPs' uptake of the guidelines. The results have informed the design of an intervention aimed at supporting practice change in line with dementia guidelines, which is currently being evaluated in a cluster randomised trial.

Feasibility of applying review criteria for depression and osteoporosis national guidance in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Data on the uptake of clinical guidelines into practice are essential to guide and evaluate quality improvement interventions. Organizations responsible for service specification, monitoring and improvement need to consider the practicality of and trade-offs made in different data collection methods. We examined the feasibility of deriving and applying review criteria for clinical guidelines in English primary care. METHODS: We selected two sets of guidance, on osteoporosis and depression, and used a consensus process to derive review criteria. We manually extracted data on adherence to review criteria from patient records in 20 general practices from three NHS primary care trusts in northern England. We compared the relative utility of extracted data with that of routinely available data, summarizing feasibility using what we termed a Resource Ratio. RESULTS: Of 53 proposed review criteria we assessed, 41 were judged clinically important, valid, relevant and measurable. Thirty-one could be assessed in 10% or more of sampled patients, whereas 15 could be readily extracted (resource ratio of 15 or less). Only eight met all desirable attributes for use as review criteria. Resource ratios correlated poorly with local stakeholders' prior views on feasibility of data collection. We observed wide variations in compliance with review criteria, with notably low levels among self-care standards. CONCLUSIONS: A minority of guideline recommendations were suitable for review criteria development, fewer still when using routinely available data. Local stakeholders tend to underestimate the actual resource requirements of data collection. Although improved design and use of clinical records may facilitate measurement of adherence to recommended practice, detailed assessments are still likely to rely upon some degree of manual data collection in the foreseeable future.

General practitioners' psychosocial resources, distress, and sickness absence: a study comparing the UK and Finland.

BACKGROUND: Many countries, including the UK and Finland, face difficulties in recruiting GPs and one reason for these difficulties may be due to negative psychosocial work environments. OBJECTIVE: To compare psychosocial resources (job control and participative safety), distress and sickness absences between GPs from the UK and those from Finland. We also examined differences in how psychosocial resources are associated with distress and sickness absence and how distress is associated with sickness absence for both countries. METHODS: Two independent cross-sectional surveys conducted in general practice in the UK and Finland. Analyses of covariance were used for continuous outcome variables and logistic regression for dichotomized variable (sickness absence) adjusted for gender, qualification year and response format. RESULTS: UK GPs reported more opportunities to control their work and had higher levels of participative safety but were more distressed than Finnish GPs. Finnish GPs were 2.3 (95% confidence interval = 1.8-3.1) times more likely to report sickness absence spells than UK GPs. Among Finnish GPs, job control opportunities and high participative safety were associated with lower levels of distress, but not among UK GPs. Among UK GPs, higher distress was associated with 2.1 (95% confidence interval = 1.3-3.6) times higher likelihood of sickness absence spells, but among Finnish GPs there were no such association. CONCLUSION: In Finland, primary health care organizations should try to improve participative safety and increase control opportunities of physicians to decrease GP distress, whereas in the UK, other work or private life factors may be more important.

Variability in research ethics review of cluster randomized trials: a scenario-based survey in three countries.

BACKGROUND: Cluster randomized trials (CRTs) present unique ethical challenges. In the absence of a uniform standard for their ethical design and conduct, problems such as variability in procedures and requirements by different research ethics committees will persist. We aimed to assess the need for ethics guidelines for CRTs among research ethics chairs internationally, investigate variability in procedures for research ethics review of CRTs within and among countries, and elicit research ethics chairs' perspectives on specific ethical issues in CRTs, including the identification of research subjects. The proper identification of research subjects is a necessary requirement in the research ethics review process, to help ensure, on the one hand, that subjects are protected from harm and exploitation, and on the other, that reviews of CRTs are completed efficiently. METHODS: A web-based survey with closed- and open-ended questions was administered to research ethics chairs in Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom. The survey presented three scenarios of CRTs involving cluster-level, professional-level, and individual-level interventions. For each scenario, a series of questions was posed with respect to the type of review required (full, expedited, or no review) and the identification of research subjects at cluster and individual levels. RESULTS: A total of 189 (35%) of 542 chairs responded. Overall, 144 (84%, 95% CI 79 to 90%) agreed or strongly agreed that there is a need for ethics guidelines for CRTs and 158 (92%, 95% CI 88 to 96%) agreed or strongly agreed that research ethics committees could be better informed about distinct ethical issues surrounding CRTs. There was considerable variability among research ethics chairs with respect to the type of review required, as well as the identification of research subjects. The cluster-cluster and professional-cluster scenarios produced the most disagreement. CONCLUSIONS: Research ethics committees identified a clear need for ethics guidelines for CRTs and education about distinct ethical issues in CRTs. There is disagreement among committees, even within the same countries, with respect to key questions in the ethics review of CRTs. This disagreement reflects variability of opinion and practices pointing toward possible gaps in knowledge, and supports the need for explicit guidelines for the ethical conduct and review of CRTs.

Paper-based and web-based intervention modeling experiments identified the same predictors of general practitioners' antibiotic-prescribing behavior.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the robustness of the intervention modeling experiment (IME) methodology as a way of developing and testing behavioral change interventions before a full-scale trial by replicating an earlier paper-based IME. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Web-based questionnaire and clinical scenario study. General practitioners across Scotland were invited to complete the questionnaire and scenarios, which were then used to identify predictors of antibiotic-prescribing behavior. These predictors were compared with the predictors identified in an earlier paper-based IME and used to develop a new intervention. RESULTS: Two hundred seventy general practitioners completed the questionnaires and scenarios. The constructs that predicted simulated behavior and intention were attitude, perceived behavioral control, risk perception/anticipated consequences, and self-efficacy, which match the targets identified in the earlier paper-based IME. The choice of persuasive communication as an intervention in the earlier IME was also confirmed. Additionally, a new intervention, an action plan, was developed. CONCLUSION: A web-based IME replicated the findings of an earlier paper-based IME, which provides confidence in the IME methodology. The interventions will now be evaluated in the next stage of the IME, a web-based randomized controlled trial.

Comparison of four methods for assessing the importance of attitudinal beliefs: an international Delphi study in intensive care settings.

OBJECTIVES: Behaviour change interventions often target 'important' beliefs. The literature proposes four methods for assessing importance of attitudinal beliefs: elicitation frequency, importance ratings, and strength of prediction (bivariate and multivariate). We tested congruence between these methods in a Delphi study about selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD). SDD improves infection rates among critically ill patients, yet uptake in intensive care units is low internationally. METHODS: A Delphi study involved three iterations ('rounds'). Participants were 105 intensive care clinicians in the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia/New Zealand. In Round 1, semi-structured interviews were conducted to elicit beliefs about delivering SDD. In Rounds 2 and 3, participants completed questionnaires, rating agreement and importance for each belief-statement (9-point Likert scales). Belief importance was assessed using elicitation frequency, mean importance ratings, and prediction of global attitude (Pearson's correlations; beta-weights). Correlations between indices were computed. RESULTS: Participants generated 14 attitudinal beliefs. Indices had adequate variation (frequencies: 4-94, mean importance ratings: 4.93-8.00, Pearson's correlations: ± 0.09 to ± 0.54, beta-weights: ± 0.01 to ± 0.30). SDD increases antibiotic resistance was the most important belief according to three methods and was ranked second by beta-weights (behind Overall, SDD benefits patients to whom it is delivered). Spearman's correlations were significant for importance ratings with frequencies and correlations. However, other indices were unrelated. The top four beliefs differed according to the measure used. CONCLUSIONS: Results provided evidence of congruence across three methods for assessing belief importance. Beta-weights were unrelated to other indices, suggesting that they may not be appropriate as the sole method. STATEMENT OF CONTRIBUTION: What is already known on this subject? Attitudinal beliefs (specific beliefs about the consequences of performing an action) are key to designing interventions to change intentions and behaviour. The literature reports four methods for assessing the importance of attitudinal beliefs: frequency of elicitation in interviews, importance ratings in questionnaires, and strength of prediction (bivariate and multivariate) of global attitude scores. The congruence between these measures of importance is not known. What does this study add? Four indices of importance were examined in a multi-professional, international study about the use of selective digestive decontamination to prevent infection in intensive care settings. Three indices were correlated with one another. Each method used to assess importance produced a different subset of the most important beliefs. Selection of the most important beliefs should use multiple assessment methods. This evidence suggests that multiple regression approaches may not be appropriate as the sole method for assessing belief importance.

Theory-based predictors of multiple clinician behaviors in the management of diabetes.

UNLABELLED: Behavioral theory is often tested on one behavior in isolation from other behaviors and theories. We aimed to test the predictive validity of constructs from motivation and action theories of behavior across six diabetes-related clinician behaviors, within the same sample of primary care clinicians. Physicians and nurses (n = 427 from 99 practices in the United Kingdom) completed questionnaires at baseline and 12 months. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: six self-reported clinician behaviors related to advising, prescribing and examining measured at 12 months; secondary outcomes: baseline intention and patient-scenario-based simulated behavior. Across six behaviors, each theory accounted for a medium amount of variance for 12-month behavior (median R adj (2)  = 0.15), large and medium amount of variance for two intention measures (median R adj (2)  = 0.66; 0.34), and small amount of variance for simulated behavior (median R adj (2)  = 0.05). Intention/proximal goals, self-efficacy, and habit predicted all behaviors. Constructs from social cognitive theory (self-efficacy), learning theory (habit) and action and coping planning consistently predicted multiple clinician behaviors and should be targeted by quality improvement interventions.