Identifying behaviour change techniques in 287 randomized controlled trials of audit and feedback interventions targeting practice change among healthcare professionals.

BACKGROUND: Audit and feedback (A&F) is among the most widely used implementation strategies, providing healthcare professionals with summaries of their practice performance to prompt behaviour change and optimize care. Wide variability in effectiveness of A&F has spurred efforts to explore why some A&F interventions are more effective than others. Unpacking the variability of the content of A&F interventions in terms of their component behaviours change techniques (BCTs) may help advance our understanding of how A&F works best. This study aimed to systematically specify BCTs in A&F interventions targeting healthcare professional practice change. METHODS: We conducted a directed content analysis of intervention descriptions in 287 randomized trials included in an ongoing Cochrane systematic review update of A&F interventions (searched up to June 2020). Three trained researchers identified and categorized BCTs in all trial arms (treatment & control/comparator) using the 93-item BCT Taxonomy version 1. The original BCT definitions and examples in the taxonomy were adapted to include A&F-specific decision rules and examples. Two additional BCTs ('Education (unspecified)' and 'Feedback (unspecified)') were added, such that 95 BCTs were considered for coding. RESULTS: In total, 47/95 BCTs (49%) were identified across 360 treatment arms at least once (median = 5.0, IQR = 2.3, range = 129 per arm). The most common BCTs were 'Feedback on behaviour' (present 89% of the time; e.g. feedback on drug prescribing), 'Instruction on how to perform the behaviour' (71%; e.g. issuing a clinical guideline), 'Social comparison' (52%; e.g. feedback on performance of peers), 'Credible source' (41%; e.g. endorsements from respected professional body), and 'Education (unspecified)' (31%; e.g. giving a lecture to staff). A total of 130/287 (45%) control/comparator arms contained at least one BCT (median = 2.0, IQR = 3.0, range = 0-15 per arm), of which the most common were identical to those identified in treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: A&F interventions to improve healthcare professional practice include a moderate range of BCTs, focusing predominantly on providing behavioural feedback, sharing guidelines, peer comparison data, education, and leveraging credible sources. We encourage the use of our A&F-specific list of BCTs to improve knowledge of what is being delivered in A&F interventions. Our study provides a basis for exploring which BCTs are associated with intervention effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: N/A.

Quality improvement strategies for diabetes care: Effects on outcomes for adults living with diabetes.

BACKGROUND: There is a large body of evidence evaluating quality improvement (QI) programmes to improve care for adults living with diabetes. These programmes are often comprised of multiple QI strategies, which may be implemented in various combinations. Decision-makers planning to implement or evaluate a new QI programme, or both, need reliable evidence on the relative effectiveness of different QI strategies (individually and in combination) for different patient populations. OBJECTIVES: To update existing systematic reviews of diabetes QI programmes and apply novel meta-analytical techniques to estimate the effectiveness of QI strategies (individually and in combination) on diabetes quality of care. SEARCH METHODS: We searched databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL) and trials registers (ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP) to 4 June 2019. We conducted a top-up search to 23 September 2021; we screened these search results and 42 studies meeting our eligibility criteria are available in the awaiting classification section. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised trials that assessed a QI programme to improve care in outpatient settings for people living with diabetes. QI programmes needed to evaluate at least one system- or provider-targeted QI strategy alone or in combination with a patient-targeted strategy. - System-targeted: case management (CM); team changes (TC); electronic patient registry (EPR); facilitated relay of clinical information (FR); continuous quality improvement (CQI). - Provider-targeted: audit and feedback (AF); clinician education (CE); clinician reminders (CR); financial incentives (FI). - Patient-targeted: patient education (PE); promotion of self-management (PSM); patient reminders (PR). Patient-targeted QI strategies needed to occur with a minimum of one provider or system-targeted strategy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We dual-screened search results and abstracted data on study design, study population and QI strategies. We assessed the impact of the programmes on 13 measures of diabetes care, including: glycaemic control (e.g. mean glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c)); cardiovascular risk factor management (e.g. mean systolic blood pressure (SBP), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), proportion of people living with diabetes that quit smoking or receiving cardiovascular medications); and screening/prevention of microvascular complications (e.g. proportion of patients receiving retinopathy or foot screening); and harms (e.g. proportion of patients experiencing adverse hypoglycaemia or hyperglycaemia). We modelled the association of each QI strategy with outcomes using a series of hierarchical multivariable meta-regression models in a Bayesian framework. The previous version of this review identified that different strategies were more or less effective depending on baseline levels of outcomes. To explore this further, we extended the main additive model for continuous outcomes (HbA1c, SBP and LDL-C) to include an interaction term between each strategy and average baseline risk for each study (baseline thresholds were based on a data-driven approach; we used the median of all baseline values reported in the trials). Based on model diagnostics, the baseline interaction models for HbA1c, SBP and LDL-C performed better than the main model and are therefore presented as the primary analyses for these outcomes. Based on the model results, we qualitatively ordered each QI strategy within three tiers (Top, Middle, Bottom) based on its magnitude of effect relative to the other QI strategies, where 'Top' indicates that the QI strategy was likely one of the most effective strategies for that specific outcome. Secondary analyses explored the sensitivity of results to choices in model specification and priors.  Additional information about the methods and results of the review are available as Appendices in an online repository. This review will be maintained as a living systematic review; we will update our syntheses as more data become available. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 553 trials (428 patient-randomised and 125 cluster-randomised trials), including a total of 412,161 participants. Of the included studies, 66% involved people living with type 2 diabetes only. Participants were 50% female and the median age of participants was 58.4 years. The mean duration of follow-up was 12.5 months. HbA1c was the commonest reported outcome; screening outcomes and outcomes related to cardiovascular medications, smoking and harms were reported infrequently. The most frequently evaluated QI strategies across all study arms were PE, PSM and CM, while the least frequently evaluated QI strategies included AF, FI and CQI. Our confidence in the evidence is limited due to a lack of information on how studies were conducted.  Four QI strategies (CM, TC, PE, PSM) were consistently identified as 'Top' across the majority of outcomes. All QI strategies were ranked as 'Top' for at least one key outcome. The majority of effects of individual QI strategies were modest, but when used in combination could result in meaningful population-level improvements across the majority of outcomes. The median number of QI strategies in multicomponent QI programmes was three.  Combinations of the three most effective QI strategies were estimated to lead to the below effects:  - PR + PSM + CE: decrease in HbA1c by 0.41% (credibility interval (CrI) -0.61 to -0.22) when baseline HbA1c < 8.3%; - CM + PE + EPR: decrease in HbA1c by 0.62% (CrI -0.84 to -0.39) when baseline HbA1c > 8.3%;  - PE + TC + PSM: reduction in SBP by 2.14 mmHg (CrI -3.80 to -0.52) when baseline SBP < 136 mmHg; - CM + TC + PSM: reduction in SBP by 4.39 mmHg (CrI -6.20 to -2.56) when baseline SBP > 136 mmHg;  - TC + PE + CM: LDL-C lowering of 5.73 mg/dL (CrI -7.93 to -3.61) when baseline LDL < 107 mg/dL; - TC + CM + CR: LDL-C lowering by 5.52 mg/dL (CrI -9.24 to -1.89) when baseline LDL > 107 mg/dL. Assuming a baseline screening rate of 50%, the three most effective QI strategies were estimated to lead to an absolute improvement of 33% in retinopathy screening (PE + PR + TC) and 38% absolute increase in foot screening (PE + TC + Other). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is a significant body of evidence about QI programmes to improve the management of diabetes. Multicomponent QI programmes for diabetes care (comprised of effective QI strategies) may achieve meaningful population-level improvements across the majority of outcomes. For health system decision-makers, the evidence summarised in this review can be used to identify strategies to include in QI programmes. For researchers, this synthesis identifies higher-priority QI strategies to examine in further research regarding how to optimise their evaluation and effects. We will maintain this as a living systematic review.

Non-clinical interventions for reducing unnecessary caesarean section.

BACKGROUND: Caesarean section rates are increasing globally. The factors contributing to this increase are complex, and identifying interventions to address them is challenging. Non-clinical interventions are applied independently of a clinical encounter between a health provider and a patient. Such interventions may target women, health professionals or organisations. They address the determinants of caesarean births and could have a role in reducing unnecessary caesarean sections. This review was first published in 2011. This review update will inform a new WHO guideline, and the scope of the update was informed by WHO's Guideline Development Group for this guideline. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of non-clinical interventions intended to reduce unnecessary caesarean section. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and two trials registers in March 2018. We also searched websites of relevant organisations and reference lists of related reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series studies and repeated measures studies were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome measures were: caesarean section, spontaneous vaginal birth and instrumental birth. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. We narratively described results of individual studies (drawing summarised evidence from single studies assessing distinct interventions). MAIN RESULTS: We included 29 studies in this review (19 randomised trials, 1 controlled before-after study and 9 interrupted time series studies). Most of the studies (20 studies) were conducted in high-income countries and none took place in low-income countries. The studies enrolled a mixed population of pregnant women, including nulliparous women, multiparous women, women with a fear of childbirth, women with high levels of anxiety and women having undergone a previous caesarean section.Overall, we found low-, moderate- or high-certainty evidence that the following interventions have a beneficial effect on at least one primary outcome measure and no moderate- or high-certainty evidence of adverse effects.Interventions targeted at women or familiesChildbirth training workshops for mothers alone may reduce caesarean section (risk ratio (RR) 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 0.89) and may increase spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 2.25, 95% CI 1.16 to 4.36). Childbirth training workshops for couples may reduce caesarean section (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.94) and may increase spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 2.13, 95% CI 1.09 to 4.16). We judged this one study with 60 participants to have low-certainty evidence for the outcomes above.Nurse-led applied relaxation training programmes (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.43; 104 participants, low-certainty evidence) and psychosocial couple-based prevention programmes (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.90; 147 participants, low-certainty evidence) may reduce caesarean section. Psychoeducation may increase spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.61; 371 participants, low-certainty evidence). The control group received routine maternity care in all studies.There were insufficient data on the effect of the four interventions on maternal and neonatal mortality or morbidity.Interventions targeted at healthcare professionalsImplementation of clinical practice guidelines combined with mandatory second opinion for caesarean section indication slightly reduces the risk of overall caesarean section (mean difference in rate change -1.9%, 95% CI -3.8 to -0.1; 149,223 participants). Implementation of clinical practice guidelines combined with audit and feedback also slightly reduces the risk of caesarean section (risk difference (RD) -1.8%, 95% CI -3.8 to -0.2; 105,351 participants). Physician education by local opinion leader (obstetrician-gynaecologist) reduced the risk of elective caesarean section to 53.7% from 66.8% (opinion leader education: 53.7%, 95% CI 46.5 to 61.0%; control: 66.8%, 95% CI 61.7 to 72.0%; 2496 participants). Healthcare professionals in the control groups received routine care in the studies. There was little or no difference in maternal and neonatal mortality or morbidity between study groups. We judged the certainty of evidence to be high.Interventions targeted at healthcare organisations or facilitiesCollaborative midwifery-labourist care (in which the obstetrician provides in-house labour and delivery coverage, 24 hours a day, without competing clinical duties), versus a private practice model of care, may reduce the primary caesarean section rate. In one interrupted time series study, the caesarean section rate decreased by 7% in the year after the intervention, and by 1.7% per year thereafter (1722 participants); the vaginal birth rate after caesarean section increased from 13.3% before to 22.4% after the intervention (684 participants). Maternal and neonatal mortality were not reported. We judged the certainty of evidence to be low.We studied the following interventions, and they either made little or no difference to caesarean section rates or had uncertain effects.Moderate-certainty evidence suggests little or no difference in caesarean section rates between usual care and: antenatal education programmes for physiologic childbirth; antenatal education on natural childbirth preparation with training in breathing and relaxation techniques; computer-based decision aids; individualised prenatal education and support programmes (versus written information in pamphlet).Low-certainty evidence suggests little or no difference in caesarean section rates between usual care and: psychoeducation; pelvic floor muscle training exercises with telephone follow-up (versus pelvic floor muscle training without telephone follow-up); intensive group therapy (cognitive behavioural therapy and childbirth psychotherapy); education of public health nurses on childbirth classes; role play (versus standard education using lectures); interactive decision aids (versus educational brochures); labourist model of obstetric care (versus traditional model of obstetric care).We are very uncertain as to the effect of other interventions identified on caesarean section rates as the certainty of the evidence is very low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We evaluated a wide range of non-clinical interventions to reduce unnecessary caesarean section, mostly in high-income settings. Few interventions with moderate- or high-certainty evidence, mainly targeting healthcare professionals (implementation of guidelines combined with mandatory second opinion, implementation of guidelines combined with audit and feedback, physician education by local opinion leader) have been shown to safely reduce caesarean section rates. There are uncertainties in existing evidence related to very-low or low-certainty evidence, applicability of interventions and lack of studies, particularly around interventions targeted at women or families and healthcare organisations or facilities.