Implementation Strategies for Knowledge Products in Primary Health Care: Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews.

BACKGROUND: The underuse or overuse of knowledge products leads to waste in health care, and primary care is no exception. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to characterize which knowledge products are frequently implemented, the implementation strategies used in primary care, and the implementation outcomes that are measured. METHODS: We performed a systematic review (SR) of SRs using the Cochrane systematic approach to include eligible SRs. The inclusion criteria were any primary care contexts, health care professionals and patients, any Effective Practice and Organization of Care implementation strategies of specified knowledge products, any comparators, and any implementation outcomes based on the Proctor framework. We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Ovid PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases from their inception to October 2019 without any restrictions. We searched the references of the included SRs. Pairs of reviewers independently performed selection, data extraction, and methodological quality assessment by using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2. Data extraction was informed by the Effective Practice and Organization of Care taxonomy for implementation strategies and the Proctor framework for implementation outcomes. We performed a descriptive analysis and summarized the results by using a narrative synthesis. RESULTS: Of the 11,101 records identified, 81 (0.73%) SRs were included. Of these 81, a total of 47 (58%) SRs involved health care professionals alone. Moreover, 15 SRs had a high or moderate methodological quality. Most of them addressed 1 type of knowledge product (56/81, 69%), common clinical practice guidelines (26/56, 46%) or management, and behavioral or pharmacological health interventions (24/56, 43%). Mixed strategies were used for implementation (67/81, 83%), predominantly education-based (meetings in 60/81, 74%; materials distribution in 59/81, 73%; and academic detailing in 45/81, 56%), reminder (53/81, 36%), and audit and feedback (40/81, 49%) strategies. Education meetings (P=.13) and academic detailing (P=.11) seemed to be used more when the population was composed of health care professionals alone. Improvements in the adoption of knowledge products were the most commonly measured outcome (72/81, 89%). The evidence level was reported in 12% (10/81) of SRs on 62 outcomes (including 48 improvements in adoption), of which 16 (26%) outcomes were of moderate or high level. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical practice guidelines and management and behavioral or pharmacological health interventions are the most commonly implemented knowledge products and are implemented through the mixed use of educational, reminder, and audit and feedback strategies. There is a need for a strong methodology for the SR of randomized controlled trials to explore their effectiveness and the entire cascade of implementation outcomes.

Printed educational materials: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Printed educational materials are widely used dissemination strategies to improve the quality of healthcare professionals' practice and patient health outcomes. Traditionally they are presented in paper formats such as monographs, publication in peer-reviewed journals and clinical guidelines. This is the fourth update of the review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of printed educational materials (PEMs) on the practice of healthcare professionals and patient health outcomes. To explore the influence of some of the characteristics of the printed educational materials (e.g. source, content, format) on their effect on healthcare professionals' practice and patient health outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), HealthStar, CINAHL, ERIC, CAB Abstracts, Global Health, and EPOC Register from their inception to 6 February 2019. We checked the reference lists of all included studies and relevant systematic reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised trials (RTs), controlled before-after studies (CBAs) and interrupted time series studies (ITSs) that evaluated the impact of PEMs on healthcare professionals' practice or patient health outcomes. We included three types of comparisons: (1) PEM versus no intervention, (2) PEM versus single intervention, (3) multifaceted intervention where PEM is included versus multifaceted intervention without PEM. Any objective measure of professional practice (e.g. prescriptions for a particular drug), or patient health outcomes (e.g. blood pressure) were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers undertook data extraction independently. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. For analyses, we grouped the included studies according to study design, type of outcome and type of comparison. For controlled trials, we reported the median effect size for each outcome within each study, the median effect size across outcomes for each study and the median of these effect sizes across studies. Where data were available, we re-analysed the ITS studies by converting all data to a monthly basis and estimating the effect size from the change in the slope of the regression line between before and after implementation of the PEM. We reported median changes in slope for each outcome, for each study, and then across studies. We standardised all changes in slopes by their standard error, allowing comparisons and combination of different outcomes. We categorised each PEM according to potential effects modifiers related to the source of the PEMs, the channel used for their delivery, their content, and their format. We assessed the risks of bias of all the included studies. MAIN RESULTS: We included 84 studies: 32 RTs, two CBAs and 50 ITS studies. Of the 32 RTs, 19 were cluster RTs that used various units of randomisation, such as practices, health centres, towns, or areas. The majority of the included studies (82/84) compared the effectiveness of PEMs to no intervention. Based on the RTs that provided moderate-certainty evidence, we found that PEMs distributed to healthcare professionals probably improve their practice, as measured with dichotomous variables, compared to no intervention (median absolute risk difference (ARD): 0.04; interquartile range (IQR): 0.01 to 0.09; 3,963 healthcare professionals randomised within 3073 units). We could not confirm this finding using the evidence gathered from continuous variables (standardised mean difference (SMD): 0.11; IQR: -0.16 to 0.52; 1631 healthcare professionals randomised within 1373 units ), from the ITS studies (standardised median change in slope = 0.69; 35 studies), or from the CBA study because the certainty of this evidence was very low. We also found, based on RTs that provided moderate-certainty evidence, that PEMs distributed to healthcare professionals probably make little or no difference to patient health as measured using dichotomous variables, compared to no intervention (ARD: 0.02; IQR: -0.005 to 0.09; 935,015 patients randomised within 959 units). The evidence gathered from continuous variables (SMD: 0.05; IQR: -0.12 to 0.09; 6,737 patients randomised within 594 units) or from ITS study results (standardised median change in slope = 1.12; 8 studies) do not strengthen these findings because the certainty of this evidence was very low. Two studies (a randomised trial and a CBA) compared a paper-based version to a computerised version of the same PEM. From the RT that provided evidence of low certainty, we found that PEM in computerised versions may make little or no difference to professionals' practice compared to PEM in printed versions (ARD: -0.02; IQR: -0.03 to 0.00; 139 healthcare professionals randomised individually). This finding was not strengthened by the CBA study that provided very low certainty evidence (SMD: 0.44; 32 healthcare professionals). The data gathered did not allow us to conclude which PEM characteristics influenced their effectiveness. The methodological quality of the included studies was variable. Half of the included RTs were at risk of selection bias. Most of the ITS studies were conducted retrospectively, without prespecifying the expected effect of the intervention, or acknowledging the presence of a secular trend. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results of this review suggest that, when used alone and compared to no intervention, PEMs may slightly improve healthcare professionals' practice outcomes and patient health outcomes. The effectiveness of PEMs compared to other interventions, or of PEMs as part of a multifaceted intervention, is uncertain.

Improving the usefulness of evidence concerning the effectiveness of implementation strategies for knowledge products in primary healthcare: protocol for a series of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: The literature on the implementation of knowledge products is extensive. However, this literature is still difficult to interpret for policymakers and other stakeholders when faced with choosing implementation strategies likely to bring about successful change in their health systems. This work has the particularity to examine the scope of this literature, and to clarify the effectiveness of implementation strategies for different knowledge products. Consequently, we aim to (1) determine the strengths and weaknesses of existing literature overviews; (2) produce a detailed portrait of the literature on implementation strategies for various knowledge products; and (3) assess the effectiveness of implementation strategies for each knowledge product identified and classify them. METHODS: We will use a three-phase approach consisting of a critical analysis of existing literature overviews, a systematic review of systematic reviews, and a series of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We will follow the Cochrane Methodology for each of the three phases. Our eligibility criteria are defined following a PICOS approach: Population, individuals or stakeholders participating in healthcare delivery, specifically, healthcare providers, caregivers, and end users; Intervention, any type of strategy aiming to implement a knowledge product including, but not limited to, a decision support tool, a clinical practice guideline, a policy brief, or a decision-making tool, a one-pager, or a health intervention; Comparison, any comparator will be considered; Outcomes, phases 1 and 2-any outcome related to implementation strategies including, but not limited to, the measures of adherence/fidelity to the use of knowledge products, their acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, adaptability, implementation costs, penetration/reach and sustainability; phase 3-any additional outcome related to patients (psychosocial, health behavioral, and clinical outcomes) or healthcare professionals (behavioral and performance outcomes); Setting, primary healthcare has to be covered. We will search MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, Web of Science, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library from their inception onwards. For each phase, two reviewers will independently perform the selection of studies, data extraction, and assess their methodological quality. We will analyze extracted data, and perform narrative syntheses, and meta-analyses when possible. DISCUSSION: Our results could inform not only the overviews' methodology but also the development of an online platform for the implementation strategies of knowledge products. This platform could be useful for stakeholders in implementation science. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Protocol registered on Open Science Framework, https://osf.io/eb8w2/.

Prevalence of tuberculosis in Rwanda: Results of the first nationwide survey in 2012 yielded important lessons for TB control.

BACKGROUND: Rwanda conducted a national tuberculosis (TB) prevalence survey to determine the magnitude of TB in the country and determine to what extent the national surveillance system captures all TB cases. In addition we measured the patient diagnostic rate, comparing the measured TB burden data with the routine surveillance data to gain insight into how well key population groups are being detected. METHODS: A national representative nationwide cross-sectional survey was conducted in 73 clusters in 2012 whereby all enrolled participants (residents aged 15 years and above) were systematically screened for TB by symptoms and chest X-ray (CXR). Those with either clinical symptoms (cough of any duration) and/or CXR abnormalities suggestive of TB disease were requested to provide two sputum samples (one spot and one morning) for smear examination and solid culture. RESULTS: Of the 45,058 eligible participants, 43,779 were enrolled in the survey. Participation rate was high at 95.7% with 99.8% of participants undergoing both screening procedures and 99.0% of those eligible for sputum examination submitting at least one sputum sample. Forty cases of prevalent mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) and 16 mycobacteria other than tuberculosis (MOTT) cases were detected during the survey. Chest x-ray as screening tool had 3 and 5 times greater predictive odds for smear positive and bacteriological confirmed TB than symptom screening alone respectively. A TB prevalence of 74.1 (95% CI 48.3-99.3) per 100,000 adult population for smear positive TB and 119.3 (95% CI 78.8-159.9) per 100,000 adult population for bacteriological confirmed MTB was estimated for Rwanda. CONCLUSIONS: The survey findings indicated a lower TB prevalence than previously estimated by WHO providing key lessons for national TB control, calling for more sensitive screening and diagnostic tools and a focus on key populations. Use of chest x-ray as screening tool was introduced to improve the diagnostic yield of TB.

Latent Tuberculosis Infection and Associated Factors among Health Care Workers in Kigali, Rwanda.

INTRODUCTION: Data are limited regarding tuberculosis (TB) and latent TB infection prevalence in Rwandan health facilities. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey among healthcare workers (HCWs) in Kigali during 2010. We purposively selected the public referral hospital, both district hospitals, and randomly selected 7 of 17 health centers. School workers (SWs) from the nearest willing public schools served as a local reference group. We tested for latent TB infection (LTBI) using tuberculin skin testing (TST) and asked about past TB disease. We assessed risk of LTBI and past history of TB disease associated with hospital employment. Among HCWs, we assessed risk associated with facility type (district hospital, referral hospital, health center), work setting (inpatient, outpatient), and occupation. RESULTS: Age, gender, and HIV status was similar between the enrolled 1,131 HCWs and 381 SWs. LTBI was more prevalent among HCWs (62%) than SWs (39%). Adjusted odds of a positive TST result were 2.71 (95% CI 2.01-3.67) times greater among HCWs than SWs. Among HCWs, there was no detectable difference between prevalence of LTBI according to facility type, work setting, or occupation. CONCLUSION: HCWs are at greater risk of LTBI, regardless of facility type, work setting, or occupation. The current status of TB infection control practices should be evaluated in the entire workforce in all Rwandan healthcare facilities.

Effectiveness and safety of concurrent use of first-line antiretroviral and antituberculous drugs in rwanda.

Background. Overlapping toxicity between drugs used for HIV and TB could complicate the management of HIV/TB coinfected patients, particularly those carrying multiple opportunistic infections. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes and adverse drug events in HIV patients managed with first-line antiretroviral and first-line anti-TB drugs. Methods. This is a retrospective study utilizing medical dossiers from single-HIV infected and HIV/TB coinfected patients already initiated on ART. Predictors of outcomes included changes in CD4 cells/mm(3), body weight, physical improvement, death rate, and adverse drug reactions. Results. Records from 60 HIV patients and 60 HIV/TB patients aged between 20 and 58 years showed that all clinical indicators of effectiveness were better in single-HIV infected than in HIV/TB coinfected patients: higher CD4 cell counts, better physical improvement, and low prevalence of adverse drug events. The most frequently prescribed regimen was TDF/3TC/EFV+RHZE. The mortality rate was 20% in HIV/TB patients compared to 8.3% in the single-HIV group. Conclusion. Treatment regimens applied are efficient in controlling the progression of the infection. However, attention should be paid to adjust dosing when combining nonnucleoside antiretrovirals (EFV and NVR) with anti-TB drugs to minimize the risk of death by drug intoxication.