Effectiveness of knowledge brokering and recommendation dissemination for influencing healthcare resource allocation decisions: A cluster randomised controlled implementation trial.

BACKGROUND: Implementing evidence into clinical practice is a key focus of healthcare improvements to reduce unwarranted variation. Dissemination of evidence-based recommendations and knowledge brokering have emerged as potential strategies to achieve evidence implementation by influencing resource allocation decisions. The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of these two research implementation strategies to facilitate evidence-informed healthcare management decisions for the provision of inpatient weekend allied health services. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This multicentre, single-blinded (data collection and analysis), three-group parallel cluster randomised controlled trial with concealed allocation was conducted in Australian and New Zealand hospitals between February 2018 and January 2020. Clustering and randomisation took place at the organisation level where weekend allied health staffing decisions were made (e.g., network of hospitals or single hospital). Hospital wards were nested within these decision-making structures. Three conditions were compared over a 12-month period: (1) usual practice waitlist control; (2) dissemination of written evidence-based practice recommendations; and (3) access to a webinar-based knowledge broker in addition to the recommendations. The primary outcome was the alignment of weekend allied health provision with practice recommendations at the cluster and ward levels, addressing the adoption, penetration, and fidelity to the recommendations. The secondary outcome was mean hospital length of stay at the ward level. Outcomes were collected at baseline and 12 months later. A total of 45 clusters (n = 833 wards) were randomised to either control (n = 15), recommendation (n = 16), or knowledge broker (n = 14) conditions. Four (9%) did not provide follow-up data, and no adverse events were recorded. No significant effect was found with either implementation strategy for the primary outcome at the cluster level (recommendation versus control ß 18.11 [95% CI -8,721.81 to 8,758.02] p = 0.997; knowledge broker versus control ß 1.24 [95% CI -6,992.60 to 6,995.07] p = 1.000; recommendation versus knowledge broker ß -9.12 [95% CI -3,878.39 to 3,860.16] p = 0.996) or ward level (recommendation versus control ß 0.01 [95% CI 0.74 to 0.75] p = 0.983; knowledge broker versus control ß -0.12 [95% CI -0.54 to 0.30] p = 0.581; recommendation versus knowledge broker ß -0.19 [-1.04 to 0.65] p = 0.651). There was no significant effect between strategies for the secondary outcome at ward level (recommendation versus control ß 2.19 [95% CI -1.36 to 5.74] p = 0.219; knowledge broker versus control ß -0.55 [95% CI -1.16 to 0.06] p = 0.075; recommendation versus knowledge broker ß -3.75 [95% CI -8.33 to 0.82] p = 0.102). None of the control or knowledge broker clusters transitioned to partial or full alignment with the recommendations. Three (20%) of the clusters who only received the written recommendations transitioned from nonalignment to partial alignment. Limitations include underpowering at the cluster level sample due to the grouping of multiple geographically distinct hospitals to avoid contamination. CONCLUSIONS: Owing to a lack of power at the cluster level, this trial was unable to identify a difference between the knowledge broker strategy and dissemination of recommendations compared with usual practice for the promotion of evidence-informed resource allocation to inpatient weekend allied health services. Future research is needed to determine the interactions between different implementation strategies and healthcare contexts when translating evidence into healthcare practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12618000029291.

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.

Changing practice in the assessment and treatment of somatosensory loss in stroke survivors: protocol for a knowledge translation study.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of somatosensory loss in the upper limb after stroke has been historically overshadowed by therapy focused on motor recovery. A double-blind randomized controlled trial has demonstrated the effectiveness of SENSe (Study of the Effectiveness of Neurorehabilitation on Sensation) therapy to retrain somatosensory discrimination after stroke. Given the acknowledged prevalence of upper limb sensory loss after stroke and the evidence-practice gap that exists in this area, effort is required to translate the published research to clinical practice. The aim of this study is to determine whether evidence-based knowledge translation strategies change the practice of occupational therapists and physiotherapists in the assessment and treatment of sensory loss of the upper limb after stroke to improve patient outcomes. METHOD/DESIGN: A pragmatic, before-after study design involving eight (n = 8) Australian health organizations, specifically sub-acute and community rehabilitation facilities. Stroke survivors (n = 144) and occupational therapists and physiotherapists (~10 per site, ~n = 80) will be involved in the study. Stroke survivors will be provided with SENSe therapy or usual care. Occupational therapists and physiotherapists will be provided with a multi-component approach to knowledge translation including i) tailoring of the implementation intervention to site-specific barriers and enablers, ii) interactive group training workshops, iii) establishing and fostering champion therapists and iv) provision of written educational materials and online resources. Outcome measures for occupational therapists and physiotherapists will be pre- and post-implementation questionnaires and audits of medical records. The primary outcome for stroke survivors will be change in upper limb somatosensory function, measured using a standardized composite measure. DISCUSSION: This study will provide evidence and a template for knowledge translation in clinical, organizational and policy contexts in stroke rehabilitation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) retrospective registration ACTRN12615000933550 .

Somatosensory assessment and treatment after stroke: An evidence-practice gap.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Loss of body sensations is common after stroke, impacting negatively on recovery and performance of activities of daily living. Despite advances in the evidence for the assessment and treatment of somatosensory impairment post-stroke, the translation from research into clinical practice has been slow. The aim of this study was to determine current clinical practice of occupational therapists and physiotherapists in the assessment and treatment of somatosensory impairment post-stroke. METHODS: A cross-sectional, self-administered online survey of occupational therapists and physiotherapists currently working with stroke clients in Australian health organisations, identified through an audit of stroke rehabilitation services and a professional member association. RESULTS: 172 clinicians, 62.8% occupational therapists and 37.2% physiotherapists currently working with stroke clients completed the survey. Most respondents (93.0%) indicated routinely assessing for sensory loss in stroke clients. The most commonly used measures were light touch and proprioception, with the majority (70.4%) not using standardised measures. Most respondents (97.7%) reported providing treatment to address sensory impairment, with compensatory strategies and sensory re-education the two most frequently reported. Evidence-based treatment choices were not common and therapists frequently relied on colleagues' opinions and previous experience to inform practice. Therapists commonly experienced barriers to implementing evidence-based sensory rehabilitation, including time constraints, large caseloads and lack of access to evidence-based somatosensory assessment and treatment resources. CONCLUSIONS: Most therapists perceived somatosensory assessment and treatment as important. However, frequently utilised methods lack a sound theoretical or empirical basis. Despite published evidence regarding somatosensory assessment and treatment, an evidence-practice gap exists.

Rasch analysis of The Melbourne Assessment of Unilateral Upper Limb Function.

AIM: This study investigated the internal construct validity and dimensionality of the Melbourne Assessment of Unilateral Upper Limb Function (Melbourne Assessment), a widely-used measure of quality of upper limb movement, valid for children aged 2 years 6 months to 15 years with cerebral palsy. METHOD: Rasch analysis was used to assess of Melbourne Assessment raw scores for 163 children (94 males, 69 females; mean age 8y, SD 3y 5mo). Analysis was undertaken on the full scale comprising 37 scores and on groups of scores separated into four distinct movement subscales: range of movement, accuracy, dexterity, and fluency. Tests were conducted to evaluate overall model fit, item fit, suitability of the response options, unidimensionality, and differential item functioning (DIF) for sex, child age, and different raters. RESULTS: The results did not support the unidimensionality of the 37-score scale. The four subscales showed adequate model fit after removal of some score items, and rescaling of others. The resulting subscales showed good internal consistency and no DIF for sex or child age. INTERPRETATION: This study provides empirical support for a revised version of the Melbourne Assessment which comprises 14 tasks and 30 movement scores grouped across four separate subscales. Further testing is required to assess the responsiveness of subscales to clinically important change.

Somatosensation assessment using the NIH Toolbox.

Touch sensation is one element of sensory function. As such, somatosensation is one of the sensory domains included in the NIH Toolbox, which is an assessment battery for measuring a range of human functions including emotional health, sensation, cognition, and motor function. We evaluated a variety of methods for inclusion in the NIH Toolbox main battery. In a convenience sample of 409 participants, we evaluated aspects of kinesthesia, pain, and tactile discrimination. We present results on these measures across the lifespan and discuss implications for future studies that use the NIH Toolbox and these measures.

Pain assessment using the NIH Toolbox.

OBJECTIVE: Pain is an important component of health and function, and chronic pain can be a problem in its own right. The purpose of this report is to review the considerations surrounding pain measurement in the NIH Toolbox, as well as to describe the measurement tools that were adopted for inclusion in the NIH Toolbox assessment battery. METHODS: Instruments to measure pain in the NIH Toolbox were selected on the basis of scholarly input from a diverse group of experts, as well as review of existing instruments, which include verbal rating scales, numerical rating scales, and graphical scales. RESULTS: Brief self-report measures of pain intensity and pain interference were selected for inclusion in the core NIH Toolbox for use with adults. A 0 to 10 numerical rating scale was recommended for measuring pain intensity, and a 6-item Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) short form for measuring pain interference. The 8-item PROMIS Pediatric Pain Interference measure was recommended as a supplemental measure. No specific measure was recommended for measuring pain intensity in children. CONCLUSIONS: Core and supplemental measures were recommended for the NIH Toolbox. Additional measures were reviewed for investigators who seek tools for measuring pain intensity in pediatric samples.