Mapping Clinical Barriers and Evidence-Based Implementation Strategies in Low-to-Middle Income Countries (LMICs).

BACKGROUND: Low-to-middle income countries (LMICs) experience a high burden of disease from both non-communicable and communicable diseases. Addressing these public health concerns requires effective implementation strategies and localization of translation of knowledge into practice. AIM: To identify and categorize barriers and strategies to evidence implementation in LMICs from published evidence implementation studies. METHODS: A descriptive analysis of key characteristics of evidence implementation projects completed as part of a 6-month, multi-phase, intensive evidence-based clinical fellowship program, conducted in LMICs and published in the JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports was undertaken. Barriers were identified and categorized to the Donabedian dimensions of care (structure, process, and outcome), and strategies were mapped to the Cochrane effective practice and organization of care taxonomy. RESULTS: A total of 60 implementation projects reporting 58 evidence-based clinical audit topics from LMICs were published between 2010 and 2018. The projects included diverse populations and were predominantly conducted in tertiary care settings. A total of 279 barriers to implementation were identified. The most frequently identified groupings of barriers were process-related and associated predominantly with staff knowledge. A total of 565 strategies were used across all projects, with every project incorporating more than one strategy to address barriers to implementation of evidence-based practice; most strategies were categorized as educational meetings for healthcare workers. LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION: Context-specific strategies are required for successful evidence implementation in LMICs, and a number of common barriers can be addressed using locally available, low-cost resources. Education for healthcare workers in LMICs is an effective awareness-raising, workplace culture, and practice-transforming strategy for evidence implementation.

Fluid regimens for colostomy irrigation: a systematic review.

Background Various techniques for managing faecal evacuation have been proposed; however, colostomy irrigation is favoured as it leads to better patient outcomes. Alternative fluid regimens for colostomy irrigation have been suggested to achieve effective evacuation. Aim The objective of this review was to summarise the best available evidence on the most effective fluid regimen for colostomy irrigation. Search strategy Trials were identified by electronic searches of CINAHL, PubMed, MEDLINE, Current Contents, the Cochrane Library and EMBASE. Unpublished articles and references lists from included studies were also searched. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials and before-and-after studies investigating any fluid regimen for colostomy irrigation were eligible for inclusion. Outcomes measured included fluid inflow time, total wash-out time, haemodynamic changes during irrigation, cramps, leakage episodes, quality of life and level of satisfaction. Data collection and analysis Trial selection, quality appraisal and data extraction were carried out independently by two reviewers. Differences in opinion were resolved by discussion. Main results The systematic literature search strategy identified two cross-over trials that compared water with another fluid regimen. Owing to the differences in irrigating solutions used, the results were not pooled for analysis. Both the polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution and glyceryl trinitrate performed significantly better than water. Conclusion There is some evidence to support the effectiveness of fluid regimens other than water, such as polyethylene glycol electrolyte and glyceryl trinitrate, for colostomy irrigation. Further well-designed clinical trials are required to establish solid evidence on the effectiveness of other irrigating solutions that might enhance colonic irrigation.