Interventions aimed at increasing research use in nursing: a systematic review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>There has been considerable interest recently in developing and evaluating interventions to increase research use by clinicians. However, most work has focused on medical practices; and nursing is not well represented in existing systematic reviews. The purpose of this article is to report findings from a systematic review of interventions aimed at increasing research use in nursing.</p> <p>Objective</p> <p>To assess the evidence on interventions aimed at increasing research use in nursing.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A systematic review of research use in nursing was conducted using databases (Medline, CINAHL, Healthstar, ERIC, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Psychinfo), grey literature, ancestry searching (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews), key informants, and manual searching of journals. Randomized controlled trials and controlled before- and after-studies were included if they included nurses, if the intervention was explicitly aimed at increasing research use or evidence-based practice, and if there was an explicit outcome to research use. Methodological quality was assessed using pre-existing tools. Data on interventions and outcomes were extracted and categorized using a pre-established taxonomy.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Over 8,000 titles were screened. Three randomized controlled trials and one controlled before- and after-study met the inclusion criteria. The methodological quality of included studies was generally low. Three investigators evaluated single interventions. The most common intervention was education. Investigators measured research use using a combination of surveys (three studies) and compliance with guidelines (one study). Researcher-led educational meetings were ineffective in two studies. Educational meetings led by a local opinion leader (one study) and the formation of multidisciplinary committees (one study) were both effective at increasing research use.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Little is known about how to increase research use in nursing, and the evidence to support or refute specific interventions is inconclusive. To advance the field, we recommend that investigators: (1) use theoretically informed interventions to increase research use, (2) measure research use longitudinally using theoretically informed and psychometrically sound measures of research use, as well as, measuring patient outcomes relevant to the intervention, and (3) use more robust and methodologically sound study designs to evaluate interventions. If investigators aim to establish a link between using research and improved patient outcomes they must first identify those interventions that are effective at increasing research use.</p

A systematic review of hand hygiene improvement strategies: a behavioural approach

Contains fulltext : 108114.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Many strategies have been designed and evaluated to address the problem of low hand hygiene (HH) compliance. Which of these strategies are most effective and how they work is still unclear. Here we describe frequently used improvement strategies and related determinants of behaviour change that prompt good HH behaviour to provide a better overview of the choice and content of such strategies. METHODS: Systematic searches of experimental and quasi-experimental research on HH improvement strategies were conducted in Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases from January 2000 to November 2009. First, we extracted the study characteristics using the EPOC Data Collection Checklist, including study objectives, setting, study design, target population, outcome measures, description of the intervention, analysis, and results. Second, we used the Taxonomy of Behavioural Change Techniques to identify targeted determinants. RESULTS: We reviewed 41 studies. The most frequently addressed determinants were knowledge, awareness, action control, and facilitation of behaviour. Fewer studies addressed social influence, attitude, self-efficacy, and intention. Thirteen studies used a controlled design to measure the effects of HH improvement strategies on HH behaviour. The effectiveness of the strategies varied substantially, but most controlled studies showed positive results. The median effect size of these strategies increased from 17.6 (relative difference) addressing one determinant to 49.5 for the studies that addressed five determinants. CONCLUSIONS: By focussing on determinants of behaviour change, we found hidden and valuable components in HH improvement strategies. Addressing only determinants such as knowledge, awareness, action control, and facilitation is not enough to change HH behaviour. Addressing combinations of different determinants showed better results. This indicates that we should be more creative in the application of alternative improvement activities addressing determinants such as social influence, attitude, self-efficacy, or intention

A review of the evidence for suboptimal compliance of healthcare practitioners to standard/universal infection control precautions

Aims.  The review examines from international research: the extent to which practitioners comply with infection control precautions; the pertinent issues that are considered influential in compliance; what strategies have been evaluated to instigate positive behaviour changes amongst practitioners and the effect of these interventions. Background.  Internationally, standard/universal precautions (UP) are regarded as fundamental in the prevention and control of infection, and effective in protecting practitioners and patients. However, adherence has been problematic and the practice of standard/UPs is globally suboptimal. Design and methods.  Literature review where relevant evidence was identified using several electronic databases, from 1994 to 2006, with number of key terms utilized. Data were extracted by using key headings, which facilitated analysis. Results.  Thirty-seven studies were appraised. Twenty-four related to measuring practitioner compliance and 13 studies that evaluated the effect of a research intervention on compliance. In addition, other studies were included which examined the specific reasons for suboptimal compliance, or discussed infection control precautions generally. Conclusions.  Compliance to infection control precautions is internationally suboptimal. The evidence confirms that compliance to specific aspects of standard/UPs varies, and practitioners are selective in their application of recommended practice. Compliance does improve following a structured intervention; however, research fails to indicate for how long the intervention affects practitioner compliance, or whether compliance after a period of time returns to the norm. Several reasons for non-compliance are discussed, and recommendations for future research are suggested. Relevance to clinical practice.  Suboptimal compliance has significant implications for staff safety, patient protection and the care environment. Infection control teams and researchers need to consider the reasons for non-compliance and provide a supportive environment that is conducive to the routine, long-term application of standard precautions