Behavioural Sciences Contribution to Suppressing Transmission of Covid-19 in the UK: A Systematic Literature Review.

BACKGROUND: Governments have relied on their citizens to adhere to a variety of transmission-reducing behaviours (TRBs) to suppress the Covid-19 pandemic. Understanding the psychological and sociodemographic predictors of adherence to TRBs will be heavily influenced by the particular theories used by researchers. This review aims to identify the theories and theoretical constructs used to understand adherence to TRBs during the pandemic within the UK social and legislative context. METHODS: A systematic review identified studies to understand TRBs of adults in the UK during the pandemic. Identified theoretical constructs were coded to the Theoretical Domains Framework. Data are presented as a narrative summary. RESULTS: Thirty-five studies (n = 211,209) investigated 123 TRBs, applied 13 theoretical frameworks and reported 50 sociodemographic characteristics and 129 psychological constructs. Most studies used social cognition theories to understand TRBs and employed cross-sectional designs. Risk of sampling bias was high. Relationships between constructs and TRBs varied, but in general, beliefs about the disease (e.g. severity and risk perception) and about TRBs (e.g. behavioural norms) influenced behavioural intentions and self-reported adherence. More studies than not found that older people and females were more adherent. CONCLUSIONS: Behavioural scientists in the UK generated a significant and varied body of work to understand TRBs during the pandemic. However, more use of theories that do not rely on deliberative processes to effect behaviour change and study designs better able to support causal inferences should be used in future to inform public health policy and practice. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42021282699.

What influences adherence to guidance for postoperative instillation of intravesical chemotherapy to patients with bladder cancer?

OBJECTIVE: To understand the barriers and facilitators to single instillation of intravesical chemotherapy (SI-IVC) use after resection of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) in Scotland and England using a behavioural theory-informed approach. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: In a cross-sectional descriptive study of practices at seven hospitals, we investigated care pathways, policies, and interviewed 30 urology staff responsible for SI-IVC. We used the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to organise our investigation and conducted deductive thematic analyses, while inductively coding emergent beliefs. RESULTS: Barriers to SI-IVC were present at different organisational levels and professional roles. In four hospitals, there was a policy to not instil SI-IVC in theatre. Six hospitals' staff reported delays in mitomycin C (MMC) ordering and/or local storage. Lack of training, skills and perceived workload affected motivation. Facilitators included access to modern instilling devices (four hospitals) and incorporating reminders in operation proforma (four hospitals). Performance targets (with audit and feedback) within a national governance framework were present in Scotland but not England. Differences in coordinated leadership, sharing best practices, and disliking being perceived as underperforming, were evident in Scotland. CONCLUSIONS: High-certainty evidence shows that SI-IVC, such as MMC, after NMIBC resection reduces recurrences. This evidence underpins international guidance. The number of eligible patients receiving SI-IVC is variable indicating suboptimal practice. Improving SI-IVC adherence requires modifications to theatre instilling policies, delivery and storage of MMC, staff training, and documentation. Centralising care, with bladder cancer expert leadership and best practices sharing with performance targets, likely led to improvements in Scotland. National quality improvement, incorporating audit and feedback, with additional implementation strategies targeted to professional role could improve adherence and patient outcomes elsewhere. This process should be controlled to clarify implementation intervention effectiveness.

Unpacking overuse of androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer to inform de-implementation strategies.

BACKGROUND: Many men with prostate cancer will be exposed to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). While evidence-based ADT use is common, ADT is also used in cases with no or limited evidence resulting in more harm than benefit, i.e., overuse. Since there are risks of ADT (e.g., diabetes, osteoporosis), it is important to understand the behaviors facilitating overuse to inform de-implementation strategies. For these reasons, we conducted a theory-informed survey study, including a discrete choice experiment (DCE), to better understand ADT overuse and provider preferences for mitigating overuse. METHODS: Our survey used the Action, Actor, Context, Target, Time (AACTT) framework, the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behavior (COM-B) Model, and a DCE to elicit provider de-implementation strategy preferences. We surveyed the Society of Government Service Urologists listserv in December 2020. We stratified respondents based on the likelihood of stopping overuse as ADT monotherapy for localized prostate cancer ("yes"/"probably yes," "probably no"/"no"), and characterized corresponding Likert scale responses to seven COM-B statements. We used multivariable regression to identify associations between stopping ADT overuse and COM-B responses. RESULTS: Our survey was completed by 84 respondents (13% response rate), with 27% indicating "probably no"/"no" to stopping ADT overuse. We found differences across respondents who said they would and would not stop ADT overuse in demographics and COM-B statements. Our model identified 2 COM-B domains (Opportunity-Social, Motivation-Reflective) significantly associated with a lower likelihood of stopping ADT overuse. Our DCE demonstrated in-person communication, multidisciplinary review, and medical record documentation may be effective in reducing ADT overuse. CONCLUSIONS: Our study used a behavioral theory-informed survey, including a DCE, to identify behaviors and context underpinning ADT overuse. Specifying behaviors supporting and gathering provider preferences in addressing ADT overuse requires a stepwise, stakeholder-engaged approach to support evidence-based cancer care. From this work, we are pursuing targeted improvement strategies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03579680.

Effectiveness of de-implementation strategies for low-value prescribing in secondary care: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Considerable efforts have been made to improve guideline adherence in healthcare through de-implementation, such as decreasing the prescription of inappropriate medicines. However, we have limited knowledge about the effectiveness, barriers, facilitators and consequences of de-implementation strategies targeting inappropriate medication prescribing in secondary care settings. This review was conducted to understand these factors to contribute to better replication and optimisation of future de-implementation efforts to reduce low-value care. METHODS: A systematic review of randomised control trials was conducted. Papers were identified through CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and Cochrane register of controlled trials to February 2021. Eligible studies were randomised control trials evaluating behavioural strategies to de-implement inappropriate prescribing in secondary healthcare. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Intervention characteristics, effectiveness, barriers, facilitators and consequences were identified in the study text and tabulated. RESULTS: Eleven studies were included, of which seven were reported as effectively de-implementing low-value prescribing. Included studies were judged to be mainly at low to moderate risk for selection biases and generally high risk for performance and reporting biases. The majority of these strategies were clinical decision support at the 'point of care'. Clinical decision support tools were the most common and effective. They were found to be a low-cost and simple strategy. However, barriers such as clinician's reluctance to accept recommendations, or the clinical setting were potential barriers to their success. Educational strategies were the second most reported intervention type however the utility of educational strategies for de-implementation remains varied. Multiple barriers and facilitators relating to the environmental context, resources and knowledge were identified across studies as potentially influencing de-implementation. Various consequences were identified; however, few measured the impact of de-implementation on usual appropriate practice. CONCLUSION: This review offers insight into the intervention strategies, potential barriers, facilitators and consequences that may affect the de-implementation of low-value prescribing in secondary care. Identification of these key features helps understand how and why these strategies are effective and the wider (desirable or undesirable) impact of de-implementation. These findings can contribute to the successful replication or optimisation of strategies used to de-implement low-value prescribing practices in future. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The review protocol was registered at PROSPERO (ID: CRD42021243944).

Mapping European Association of Urology Guideline Practice Across Europe: An Audit of Androgen Deprivation Therapy Use Before Prostate Cancer Surgery in 6598 Cases in 187 Hospitals Across 31 European Countries.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-practice gaps exist in urology. We previously surveyed European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines for strong recommendations underpinned by high-certainty evidence that impact patient experience for which practice variations were suspected. The recommendation "Do not offer neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) before surgery for patients with prostate cancer" was prioritised for further investigation. ADT before surgery is neither clinically effective nor cost effective and has serious side effects. The first step in improving implementation problems is to understand their extent. A clear picture of practice regarding ADT before surgery across Europe is not available. OBJECTIVE: To assess current ADT use before prostate cancer surgery in Europe. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was an observational cross-sectional study. We retrospectively audited recent ADT practices in a multicentre international setting. We used nonprobability purposive sampling, aiming for breadth in terms of low- versus high-volume, academic, versus community and public versus private centres. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Our primary outcome was adherence to the ADT recommendation. Descriptive statistics and a multilevel model were used to investigate differences between countries across different factors (volume, centre type, and funding type). Subgroup analyses were performed for patients with low, intermediate, and high risk, and for those with locally advanced prostate cancer. We also collected reasons for nonadherence. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: We included 6598 patients with prostate cancer from 187 hospitals in 31 countries from January 1, 2017 to May 1, 2020. Overall, nonadherence was 2%, (range 0-32%). Most of the variability was found in the high-risk subgroup, for which nonadherence was 4% (range 0-43%). Reasons for nonadherence included attempts to improve oncological outcomes or preoperative tumour parameters; attempts to control the cancer because of long waiting lists; and patient preference (changing one's mind from radiotherapy to surgery after neoadjuvant ADT had commenced or feeling that the side effects were intolerable). Although we purposively sampled for variety within countries (public/private, academic/community, high/low-volume), a selection bias toward centres with awareness of guidelines is possible, so adherence rates may be overestimated. CONCLUSIONS: EAU guidelines recommend against ADT use before prostate cancer surgery, yet some guideline-discordant ADT use remains at the cost of patient experience and an additional payer and provider burden. Strategies towards discontinuation of inappropriate preoperative ADT use should be pursued. PATIENT SUMMARY: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is sometimes used in men with prostate cancer who will not benefit from it. ADT causes side effects such as weight gain and emotional changes and increases the risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and osteoporosis. Guidelines strongly recommend that men opting for surgery should not receive ADT, but it is unclear how well the guidance is followed. We asked urologists across Europe how patients in their institutions were treated over the past few years. Most do not use ADT before surgery, but this still happens in some places. More research is needed to help doctors to stop using ADT in patients who will not benefit from it.

IMAGINE-IMpact Assessment of Guidelines Implementation and Education: The Next Frontier for Harmonising Urological Practice Across Europe by Improving Adherence to Guidelines.

Adherence to national and international clinical practice guidelines is suboptimal throughout Europe. The European Association of Urology Guidelines Office project "IMAGINE" (IMpact Assessment of Guidelines Implementation and Education) has been developed to measure baseline adherence to urological guideline recommendations across Europe and to identify issues that drive nonadherence.