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.

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.

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.

Interventions to increase clinical incident reporting in health care.

BACKGROUND: Reporting of adverse clinical events is thought to be an effective method of improving the safety of healthcare. Underreporting of these adverse events is often said to occur with consequence of missing of opportunities to learn from these incidents. A clinical incident can be defined as any occurrence which is not consistent with the routine care of the patient or the routine operation of the institution. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions designed to increase clinical incident reporting in healthcare settings. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the the following databases: Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE (OVID), CINAHL (EBSCO), Social Science Citation Index and Science Citation Index (Web of Knowledge), Healthstar (OVID), INSPEC, DHSS-DATA, SIGLE, ISI Conference Proceedings, Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index (Science), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCT), controlled before-after studies (CBA) and interrupted time series (ITS) of interventions designed to increase clinical incident reporting in healthcare. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors assessed the eligibility of potentially relevant studies, extracted the data and assessed the quality of included studies. MAIN RESULTS: Four studies (one CBA and three ITS studies) met our inclusion criteria and were included in the review. The CBA study showed a significant improvement in incident reporting rates after the introduction of the new reporting system. Just one of the ITS studies showed a statistically significant improved effectiveness of the new reporting system from nine months. The other two studies reported no statistically significant improvements. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Because of the limitations of the studies it is not possible to draw conclusions for clinical practice. Anyone introducing a system into practice should give careful consideration to conducting an evaluation using a robust design.

Developing clinical practice guidelines: types of evidence and outcomes; values and economics, synthesis, grading, and presentation and deriving recommendations.

Clinical practice guidelines are one of the foundations of efforts to improve healthcare. In 1999, we authored a paper about methods to develop guidelines. Since it was published, the methods of guideline development have progressed both in terms of methods and necessary procedures and the context for guideline development has changed with the emergence of guideline clearinghouses and large scale guideline production organisations (such as the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence). It therefore seems timely to, in a series of three articles, update and extend our earlier paper. In this second paper, we discuss issues of identifying and synthesizing evidence: deciding what type of evidence and outcomes to include in guidelines; integrating values into a guideline; incorporating economic considerations; synthesis, grading, and presentation of evidence; and moving from evidence to recommendations.

Knowledge translation of research findings.

BACKGROUND: One of the most consistent findings from clinical and health services research is the failure to translate research into practice and policy. As a result of these evidence-practice and policy gaps, patients fail to benefit optimally from advances in healthcare and are exposed to unnecessary risks of iatrogenic harms, and healthcare systems are exposed to unnecessary expenditure resulting in significant opportunity costs. Over the last decade, there has been increasing international policy and research attention on how to reduce the evidence-practice and policy gap. In this paper, we summarise the current concepts and evidence to guide knowledge translation activities, defined as T2 research (the translation of new clinical knowledge into improved health). We structure the article around five key questions: what should be transferred; to whom should research knowledge be transferred; by whom should research knowledge be transferred; how should research knowledge be transferred; and, with what effect should research knowledge be transferred? DISCUSSION: We suggest that the basic unit of knowledge translation should usually be up-to-date systematic reviews or other syntheses of research findings. Knowledge translators need to identify the key messages for different target audiences and to fashion these in language and knowledge translation products that are easily assimilated by different audiences. The relative importance of knowledge translation to different target audiences will vary by the type of research and appropriate endpoints of knowledge translation may vary across different stakeholder groups. There are a large number of planned knowledge translation models, derived from different disciplinary, contextual (i.e., setting), and target audience viewpoints. Most of these suggest that planned knowledge translation for healthcare professionals and consumers is more likely to be successful if the choice of knowledge translation strategy is informed by an assessment of the likely barriers and facilitators. Although our evidence on the likely effectiveness of different strategies to overcome specific barriers remains incomplete, there is a range of informative systematic reviews of interventions aimed at healthcare professionals and consumers (i.e., patients, family members, and informal carers) and of factors important to research use by policy makers. SUMMARY: There is a substantial (if incomplete) evidence base to guide choice of knowledge translation activities targeting healthcare professionals and consumers. The evidence base on the effects of different knowledge translation approaches targeting healthcare policy makers and senior managers is much weaker but there are a profusion of innovative approaches that warrant further evaluation.

The personal and health service impact of falls in 85 year olds: cross-sectional findings from the Newcastle 85+ cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Falls are common in older people and increase in prevalence with advancing old age. There is limited knowledge about their impact in those aged 85 years and older, the fastest growing age group of the population. We investigated the prevalence and impact of falls, and the overlap between falls, dizziness and blackouts, in a population-based sample of 85 year olds. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of baseline data from Newcastle 85+ Cohort Study. SETTING: Primary care, North-East England. PARTICIPANTS: 816 men and women aged 85 years. MEASUREMENTS: Structured interview with research nurse. Cost-consequence analysis of fall-related healthcare costs. RESULTS: Over 38% (313/816) of participants had fallen at least once in the previous 12 months and of these: 10.6% (33/312) sustained a fracture, 30.1% (94/312) attended an emergency department, and 12.8% (40/312) were admitted to hospital. Only 37.2% (115/309) of fallers had specifically discussed their falls problem with their general practitioner and only 12.7% (39/308) had seen a falls specialist. The average annual healthcare cost per faller was estimated at £202 (inter-quartile range £174-£231) or US$329 ($284-$377). 'Worry about falling' was experienced by 42.0% (128/305) of fallers, 'loss of confidence' by 40.0% (122/305), and 'going out less often' by 25.9% (79/305); each was significantly more common in women, odds ratios (95% confidence interval) for women: men of 2.63 (1.45-4.55), 4.00 (2.27-7.14), and 2.86 (1.54-5.56) respectively. Dizziness and blackouts were reported by 40.0% (318/796) and 6.4% (52/808) of participants respectively. There was marked overlap in the report of falls, dizziness and blackouts. CONCLUSIONS: Falls in 85 year olds are very common, associated with considerable psychological and physical morbidity, and have high impact on healthcare services. Wider use of fall prevention services is needed. Significant expansion in acute and preventative services is required in view of the rapid growth in this age group.

E-mail invitations to general practitioners were as effective as postal invitations and were more efficient.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate which of two invitation methods, e-mail or post, was most effective at recruiting general practitioners (GPs) to an online trial. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Randomized controlled trial. Participants were GPs in Scotland, United Kingdom. RESULTS: Two hundred and seventy GPs were recruited. Using e-mail did not improve recruitment (risk difference=0.7% [95% confidence interval -2.7% to 4.1%]). E-mail was, however, simpler to use and cheaper, costing £3.20 per recruit compared with £15.69 for postal invitations. Reminders increased recruitment by around 4% for each reminder sent for both invitation methods. CONCLUSIONS: In the Scottish context, inviting GPs to take part in an online trial by e-mail does not adversely affect recruitment and is logistically easier and cheaper than using postal invitations.

Tonsillectomy: a cost-effective option for childhood sore throat? Further analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the estimated cost-effectiveness of childhood (adeno)tonsillectomy vs medical therapy for recurrent sore throats from the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) with that modeled on the recorded timing of surgical interventions as observed in all participants irrespective of their original group allocation. STUDY DESIGN: A pragmatic RCT (trial) with a parallel nonrandomized patient preference group (cohort) of (adeno)tonsillectomy vs medical therapy. SETTING: Five secondary care UK otolaryngology departments. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Eligible children, aged 4 to 15 years, were enrolled to the trial (268) or cohort (461) groups. Outcomes included sore throat diaries, quality of life, and general practice consultations. The RCT protocol ITT analysis was compared with an as-treated analysis incorporating the cohort group, modeled to reflect the timing of tonsillectomy and the differential switch rates among the original groups. RESULTS: In the RCT ITT analysis, tonsillectomy saved 3.5 sore throats, whereas the as-treated model suggested an average reduction of more than 8 sore throats in 2 years for surgery within 10 weeks of consultation, falling to only 3.5 twelve months later due to the spontaneous improvement in the medical therapy group. CONCLUSION: In eligible UK school-age children, tonsillectomy can save up to 8 sore throats at a reasonable cost, if performed promptly. Further prospective data collection, accounting for baseline and per-trial preferences and choice, is urgently needed.

Public release of performance data in changing the behaviour of healthcare consumers, professionals or organisations.

BACKGROUND: It is becoming increasingly common to release information about the performance of hospitals, health professionals or providers, and healthcare organisations into the public domain. However, we do not know how this information is used and to what extent such reporting leads to quality improvement by changing the behaviour of healthcare consumers, providers and purchasers, or to what extent the performance of professionals and providers can be affected. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of the public release of performance data in changing the behaviour of healthcare consumers, professionals and organisations. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Trials Register, MEDLINE Ovid (from 1966), EMBASE Ovid (from 1979), CINAHL, PsycINFO Ovid (from 1806) and DARE up to 2011. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for randomised or quasi-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 individuals. The papers had to report at least one main outcome related to selecting or changing care. Other outcome measures were awareness, attitude, views and knowledge of performance data and costs. 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, views, knowledge of performance data and costs). MAIN RESULTS: We included four studies containing more than 35,000 consumers, and 1560 hospitals. Three studies were conducted in the USA and examined consumer behaviour after the public release of performance data. Two studies found no effect of Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems information on health plan choice in a Medicaid population. One interrupted time series study found a small positive effect of the publishing of data on patient volumes for coronary bypass surgery and low-complication outliers for lumbar discectomy, but these effects did not persist longer than two months after each public release. No effects on patient volumes for acute myocardial infarction were found.One cluster-randomised controlled trial, conducted in Canada, studied improvement changes in care after the public release of performance data for patients with acute myocardial infarction and congestive heart failure. No effects for the composite process-of-care indicators for either condition were found, but there were some improvements in the individual process-of-care indicators. There was an effect on the mortality rates for acute myocardial infarction. More quality improvement activities were initiated in response to the publicly-released report cards. No secondary outcomes were reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The small body of evidence available provides no consistent evidence that the public release of performance data changes consumer behaviour or improves care. Evidence that the public release of performance data may have an impact on the behaviour of healthcare professionals or organisations is lacking.

Assessment of a large panel of candidate biomarkers of ageing in the Newcastle 85+ study.

Sensitive and specific biomarkers of ageing are needed to evaluate interventions to extend health span. However, there is growing evidence that information provided by candidate biomarkers may change with age itself. Little is yet known about the value of candidate biomarkers in those over 85 years, currently the fastest growing population sub-group in many countries. This study assessed a large panel of candidate biomarkers in a cohort of 85 years old by studying comparative associations with health status. Using a cross-sectional sample of 852 individuals aged 85, we performed uni- and multi-variable analyses of associations between 74 candidate biomarkers and 4 health-status measures: viz. multi-morbidity, cognitive impairment, disability and proximity to death as measured by mortality within 1.5 years. We defined as most informative any measures that were significantly associated with at least two of the health-status measures in multivariable analyses in this age group. 10 out of 74 tested candidates fulfilled this criterion, while several proposed biomarkers of ageing, notably inflammation and immune risk markers and telomere length, did not. As future data accrues on health outcomes within the cohort, it will become possible also to evaluate the predictive value of these and others of the candidate biomarkers.

An overview of reviews evaluating the effectiveness of financial incentives in changing healthcare professional behaviours and patient outcomes.

BACKGROUND: There is considerable interest in the effectiveness of financial incentives in the delivery of health care. Incentives may be used in an attempt to increase the use of evidence-based treatments among healthcare professionals or to stimulate health professionals to change their clinical behaviour with respect to preventive, diagnostic and treatment decisions, or both. Financial incentives are an extrinsic source of motivation and exist when an individual can expect a monetary transfer which is made conditional on acting in a particular way. Since there are numerous reviews performed within the healthcare area describing the effects of various types of financial incentives, it is important to summarise the effectiveness of these in an overview to discern which are most effective in changing health professionals' behaviour and patient outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To conduct an overview of systematic reviews that evaluates the impact of financial incentives on healthcare professional behaviour and patient outcomes. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) (The Cochrane Library); Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE); TRIP; MEDLINE; EMBASE; Science Citation Index; Social Science Citation Index; NHS EED; HEED; EconLit; and Program in Policy Decision-Making (PPd) (from their inception dates up to January 2010). We searched the reference lists of all included reviews and carried out a citation search of those papers which cited studies included in the review. We included both Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), interrupted time series (ITSs) and controlled before and after studies (CBAs) that evaluated the effects of financial incentives on professional practice and patient outcomes, and that reported numerical results of the included individual studies. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of each review according to the AMSTAR criteria. We included systematic reviews of studies evaluating the effectiveness of any type of financial incentive. We grouped financial incentives into five groups: payment for working for a specified time period; payment for each service, episode or visit; payment for providing care for a patient or specific population; payment for providing a pre-specified level or providing a change in activity or quality of care; and mixed or other systems. We summarised data using vote counting. MAIN RESULTS: We identified four reviews reporting on 32 studies. Two reviews scored 7 on the AMSTAR criteria (moderate, score 5 to 7, quality) and two scored 9 (high, score 8 to 11, quality). The reported quality of the included studies was, by a variety of methods, low to moderate. Payment for working for a specified time period was generally ineffective, improving 3/11 outcomes from one study reported in one review. Payment for each service, episode or visit was generally effective, improving 7/10 outcomes from five studies reported in three reviews; payment for providing care for a patient or specific population was generally effective, improving 48/69 outcomes from 13 studies reported in two reviews; payment for providing a pre-specified level or providing a change in activity or quality of care was generally effective, improving 17/20 reported outcomes from 10 studies reported in two reviews; and mixed and other systems were of mixed effectiveness, improving 20/31 reported outcomes from seven studies reported in three reviews. When looking at the effect of financial incentives overall across categories of outcomes, they were of mixed effectiveness on consultation or visit rates (improving 10/17 outcomes from three studies in two reviews); generally effective in improving processes of care (improving 41/57 outcomes from 19 studies in three reviews); generally effective in improving referrals and admissions (improving 11/16 outcomes from 11 studies in four reviews); generally ineffective in improving compliance with guidelines outcomes (improving 5/17 outcomes from five studies in two reviews); and generally effective in improving prescribing costs outcomes (improving 28/34 outcomes from 10 studies in one review). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Financial incentives may be effective in changing healthcare professional practice. The evidence has serious methodological limitations and is also very limited in its completeness and generalisability. We found no evidence from reviews that examined the effect of financial incentives on patient outcomes.

Capability and dependency in the Newcastle 85+ cohort study. Projections of future care needs.

BACKGROUND: Little is known of the capabilities of the oldest old, the fastest growing age group in the population. We aimed to estimate capability and dependency in a cohort of 85 year olds and to project future demand for care. METHODS: Structured interviews at age 85 with 841 people born in 1921 and living in Newcastle and North Tyneside, UK who were permanently registered with participating general practices. Measures of capability included were self-reported activities of daily living (ADL), timed up and go test (TUG), standardised mini-mental state examination (SMMSE), and assessment of urinary continence in order to classify interval-need dependency. To project future demand for care the proportion needing 24-hour care was applied to the 2008 England and Wales population projections of those aged 80 years and over by gender. RESULTS: Of participants, 62% (522/841) were women, 77% (651/841) lived in standard housing, 13% (106/841) in sheltered housing and 10% (84/841) in a care home. Overall, 20% (165/841) reported no difficulty with any of the ADLs. Men were more capable in performing ADLs and more independent than women. TUG validated self-reported ADLs. When classified by 'interval of need' 41% (332/810) were independent, 39% (317/810) required help less often than daily, 12% (94/810) required help at regular times of the day and 8% (67/810) required 24-hour care. Of care-home residents, 94% (77/82) required daily help or 24-hour care. Future need for 24-hour care for people aged 80 years or over in England and Wales is projected to increase by 82% from 2010 to 2030 with a demand for 630,000 care-home places by 2030. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis highlights the diversity of capability and levels of dependency in this cohort. A remarkably high proportion remain independent, particularly men. However a significant proportion of this population require 24-hour care at home or in care homes. Projections for the next 20 years suggest substantial increases in the number requiring 24-hour care due to population ageing and a proportionate increase in demand for care-home places unless innovative health and social care interventions are found.

Interventions to change the behaviour of health professionals and the organisation of care to promote weight reduction in overweight and obese people.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of obesity is increasing globally and will, if left unchecked, have major implications for both population health and costs to health services. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of strategies to change the behaviour of health professionals and the organisation of care to promote weight reduction in overweight and obese people. SEARCH STRATEGY: We updated the search for primary studies in the following databases, which were all interrogated from the previous (version 2) search date to May 2009: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (which at this time incorporated all EPOC Specialised Register material) (The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 1), MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), and PsycINFO (Ovid). We identified further potentially relevant studies from the reference lists of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared routine provision of care with interventions aimed either at changing the behaviour of healthcare professionals or the organisation of care to promote weight reduction in overweight or obese adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. MAIN RESULTS: We included six RCTs, involving more than 246 health professionals and 1324 overweight or obese patients. Four of the trials targeted professionals and two targeted the organisation of care. Most of the studies had methodological or reporting weaknesses indicating a risk of bias.Meta-analysis of three trials that evaluated educational interventions aimed at GPs suggested that, compared to standard care, such interventions could reduce the average weight of patients after a year (by 1.2 kg, 95% CI -0.4 to 2.8 kg); however, there was moderate unexplained heterogeneity between their results (I(2) = 41%). One trial found that reminders could change doctors' practice, resulting in a significant reduction in weight among men (by 11.2 kg, 95% CI 1.7 to 20.7 kg) but not among women (who reduced weight by 1.3 kg, 95% CI -4.1 to 6.7 kg). One trial found that patients may lose more weight after a year if the care was provided by a dietitian (by 5.6 kg, 95% CI 4.8 to 6.4 kg) or by a doctor-dietitian team (by 6 kg, 95% CI 5 to 7 kg), as compared with standard care. One trial found no significant difference between standard care and either mail or phone interventions in reducing patients' weight. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Most of the included trials had methodological or reporting weaknesses and were heterogeneous in terms of participants, interventions, outcomes, and settings, so we cannot draw any firm conclusions about the effectiveness of the interventions. All of the evaluated interventions would need further investigation before it was possible to recommend them as effective strategies.

Ethical and policy issues in cluster randomized trials: rationale and design of a mixed methods research study.

BACKGROUND: Cluster randomized trials are an increasingly important methodological tool in health research. In cluster randomized trials, intact social units or groups of individuals, such as medical practices, schools, or entire communities--rather than individual themselves--are randomly allocated to intervention or control conditions, while outcomes are then observed on individual cluster members. The substantial methodological differences between cluster randomized trials and conventional randomized trials pose serious challenges to the current conceptual framework for research ethics. The ethical implications of randomizing groups rather than individuals are not addressed in current research ethics guidelines, nor have they even been thoroughly explored. The main objectives of this research are to: (1) identify ethical issues arising in cluster trials and learn how they are currently being addressed; (2) understand how ethics reviews of cluster trials are carried out in different countries (Canada, the USA and the UK); (3) elicit the views and experiences of trial participants and cluster representatives; (4) develop well-grounded guidelines for the ethical conduct and review of cluster trials by conducting an extensive ethical analysis and organizing a consensus process; (5) disseminate the guidelines to researchers, research ethics boards (REBs), journal editors, and research funders. METHODS: We will use a mixed-methods (qualitative and quantitative) approach incorporating both empirical and conceptual work. Empirical work will include a systematic review of a random sample of published trials, a survey and in-depth interviews with trialists, a survey of REBs, and in-depth interviews and focus group discussions with trial participants and gatekeepers. The empirical work will inform the concurrent ethical analysis which will lead to a guidance document laying out principles, policy options, and rationale for proposed guidelines. An Expert Panel of researchers, ethicists, health lawyers, consumer advocates, REB members, and representatives from low-middle income countries will be appointed. A consensus conference will be convened and draft guidelines will be generated by the Panel; an e-consultation phase will then be launched to invite comments from the broader community of researchers, policy-makers, and the public before a final set of guidelines is generated by the Panel and widely disseminated by the research team.

Health research funding agencies' support and promotion of knowledge translation: an international study.

CONTEXT: The process of knowledge translation (KT) in health research depends on the activities of a wide range of actors, including health professionals, researchers, the public, policymakers, and research funders. Little is known, however, about health research funding agencies' support and promotion of KT. Our team asked thirty-three agencies from Australia, Canada, France, the Netherlands, Scandinavia, the United Kingdom, and the United States about their role in promoting the results of the research they fund. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with a sample of key informants from applied health funding agencies identified by the investigators. The interviews were supplemented with information from the agencies' websites. The final coding was derived from an iterative thematic analysis. FINDINGS: There was a lack of clarity between agencies as to what is meant by KT and how it is operationalized. Agencies also varied in their degree of engagement in this process. The agencies' abilities to create a pull for research findings; to engage in linkage and exchange between agencies, researchers, and decision makers; and to push results to various audiences differed as well. Finally, the evaluation of the effectiveness of KT strategies remains a methodological challenge. CONCLUSIONS: Funding agencies need to think about both their conceptual framework and their operational definition of KT, so that it is clear what is and what is not considered to be KT, and adjust their funding opportunities and activities accordingly. While we have cataloged the range of knowledge translation activities conducted across these agencies, little is known about their effectiveness and so a greater emphasis on evaluation is needed. It would appear that "best practice" for funding agencies is an elusive concept depending on the particular agency's size, context, mandate, financial considerations, and governance structure.