Anonymity and its Prospects in the Digital World

"This work­ing paper traces the changes under­gone by anonymity - and by the dis­courses sur­rounding it - in liberal Western societies. The author asks whether the current politi­cization of the issue is likely to have any impact on the gra­dual dis­appearance of oppor­tunities for anonymity that we are currently witnes­sing and argues that anonymity is an ambi­valent but critical feature of the demo­cratic public sphere. The argu­ment proceeds in three stages. It begins with a number of concep­tual ob­ser­vations on anonymity. From these, a heuristic frame­work emerges with which the changes in anony­mous communi­cation, and in the role this communi­cation plays in society, can be described. The author then analyses the extent to which options for anonymity have been affected by the rev­olution in infor­mation and communi­cation techno­logies and concludes by con­sidering how anonymity is framed in public dis­course and what impacts this has." (author's abstract)"Das Working Paper unter­sucht die Ver­änderungen von Anonymität und den Diskursen über Anonymität in liberalen west­lichen Gesell­schaften. Der Autor fragt, in­wiefern die gegen­wärtige Politi­sierung des Themas einen Einfluss auf das gra­duelle Ver­schwinden der Möglich­keiten anonymer Kom­munikation haben wird und welche Be­deutung Anonymität für die demo­kratische Öffen­tlich­keit hat. Die Analyse voll­zieht sich in drei Schritten: Zunächst wird konzep­tuell ge­klärt, was Anonymität ist und darauf auf­bauend ein heur­istisches Instru­ment ent­wickelt mittels dessen sich die Ver­änderung anonymer Kom­muni­kations­mög­lich­keiten in der Gesell­schaft be­schreiben lassen. Im zweiten Schritt wird dieses Instru­ment zur An­wendung gebracht, um die sich wandelnden Möglich­keiten anonymer Komm­uni­kation im digitalen Struktur­wandel zu porträtieren. Der dritte Teil des Papiers fragt schließ­lich nach der Art und Weise, wie Anonymität im öffent­lichen Diskurs politi­siert wird - und sucht die Erfolgs­aus­sichten ab­zu­schätzen, die diese Thema­tisierung hat, der Ent­wicklung zu be­gegnen oder sie gar um­zu­kehren." (Autorenreferat

Perceived barriers to guideline adherence: A survey among general practitioners

Contains fulltext : 97209.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Despite considerable efforts to promote and support guideline use, adherence is often suboptimal. Barriers to adherence vary not only across guidelines but also across recommendations within guidelines. The aim of this study was to assess the perceived barriers to guideline adherence among GPs by focusing on key recommendations within guidelines. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional electronic survey among 703 GPs in the Netherlands. Sixteen key recommendations were derived from four national guidelines. Six statements were included to address the attitudes towards guidelines in general. In addition, GPs were asked to rate their perceived adherence (one statement) and the perceived barriers (fourteen statements) for each of the key recommendations, based on an existing framework. RESULTS: 264 GPs (38%) completed the questionnaire. Although 35% of the GPs reported difficulties in changing routines and habits to follow guidelines, 89% believed that following guidelines leads to improved patient care. Perceived adherence varied between 52 and 95% across recommendations (mean: 77%). The most perceived barriers were related to external factors, in particular patient ability and behaviour (mean: 30%) and patient preferences (mean: 23%). Lack of applicability of recommendations in general (mean: 22%) and more specifically to individual patients (mean: 25%) were also frequently perceived as barriers. The scores on perceived barriers differed largely between recommendations [minimum range 14%; maximum range 67%]. CONCLUSIONS: Dutch GPs have a positive attitude towards the NHG guidelines, report high adherence rates and low levels of perceived barriers. However, the perceived adherence and perceived barriers varied largely across recommendations. The most perceived barriers across recommendations are patient related, suggesting that current guidelines do not always adequately incorporate patient preferences, needs and abilities. It may be useful to provide tools such as decision aids, supporting the flexible use of guidelines to individual patients in practice

International variation in prescribing antihypertensive drugs: Its extent and possible explanations

BACKGROUND: Inexpensive antihypertensive drugs are at least as effective and safe as more expensive drugs. Overuse of newer, more expensive antihypertensive drugs is a poor use of resources. The potential savings are substantial, but vary across countries, in large part due to differences in prescribing patterns. We wanted to describe prescribing patterns of antihypertensive drugs in ten countries and explore possible reasons for inter-country variation. METHODS: National prescribing profiles were determined based on information on sales and indications for prescribing. We sent a questionnaire to academics and drug regulatory agencies in Canada, France, Germany, UK, US and the Nordic countries, asking about explanations for differences in prescribing patterns in their country compared with the other countries. We also conducted telephone interviews with medical directors of drug companies in the UK and Norway, the countries with the largest differences in prescribing patterns. RESULTS: There is considerable variation in prescribing patterns. In the UK thiazides account for 25% of consumption, while the corresponding figure for Norway is 6%. In Norway alpha-blocking agents account for 8% of consumption, which is more than twice the percentage found in any of the other countries. Suggested factors to explain inter-country variation included reimbursement policies, traditions, opinion leaders with conflicts of interests, domestic pharmaceutical production, and clinical practice guidelines. The medical directors also suggested hypotheses that: Norwegian physicians are early adopters of new interventions while the British are more conservative; there are many clinical trials conducted in Norway involving many general practitioners; there is higher cost-awareness among physicians in the UK, in part due to fund holding; and there are publicly funded pharmaceutical advisors in the UK. CONCLUSION: Two compelling explanations the variation in prescribing that warrant further investigation are the promotion of less-expensive drugs by pharmaceutical advisors in UK and the promotion of more expensive drugs through "seeding trials" in Norway

A systematic review of frameworks for the interrelationships of mental health evidence and policy in low- and middle-income countries

Background: The interrelationships between research evidence and policy-making are complex. Different theoretical frameworks exist to explain general evidence–policy interactions. One largely unexplored element of these interrelationships is how evidence interrelates with, and influences, policy/political agenda-setting. This review aims to identify the elements and processes of theories, frameworks and models on interrelationships of research evidence and health policy-making, with a focus on actionability and agenda-setting in the context of mental health in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: A systematic review of theories was conducted based on the BeHeMOTh search method, using a tested and refined search strategy. Nine electronic databases and other relevant sources were searched for peer-reviewed and grey literature. Two reviewers screened the abstracts, reviewed full-text articles, extracted data and performed quality assessments. Analysis was based on a thematic analysis. The included papers had to present an actionable theoretical framework/model on evidence and policy interrelationships, such as knowledge translation or evidence-based policy, specifically target the agenda-setting process, focus on mental health, be from LMICs and published in English. Results: From 236 publications included in the full text analysis, no studies fully complied with our inclusion criteria. Widening the focus by leaving out ‘agenda-setting’, we included ten studies, four of which had unique conceptual frameworks focusing on mental health and LMICs but not agenda-setting. The four analysed frameworks confirmed research gaps from LMICs and mental health, and a lack of focus on agenda-setting. Frameworks and models from other health and policy areas provide interesting conceptual approaches and lessons with regards to agenda-setting. Conclusion: Our systematic review identified frameworks on evidence and policy interrelations that differ in their elements and processes. No framework fulfilled all inclusion criteria. Four actionable frameworks are applicable to mental health and LMICs, but none specifically target agenda-setting. We have identified agenda-setting as a research theory gap in the context of mental health knowledge translation in LMICs. Frameworks from other health/policy areas could offer lessons on agenda-setting and new approaches for creating policy impact for mental health and to tackle the translational gap in LMICs

Screening mammography beliefs and recommendations: a web-based survey of primary care physicians

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The appropriateness and cost-effectiveness of screening mammography (SM) for women younger than 50 and older than 74 years is debated in the clinical research community, among health care providers, and by the American public. This study explored primary care physicians' (PCPs) perceptions of the influence of clinical practice guidelines for SM; the recommendations for SM in response to hypothetical case scenarios; and the factors associated with perceived SM effectiveness and recommendations in the US from June to December 2009 before the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recently revised guidelines.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A nationally representative sample of 11,922 PCPs was surveyed using a web-based questionnaire. The response rate was 5.7% (684); (41%) 271 family physicians (FP), (36%) 232 general internal medicine physicians (IM), (23%) 150 obstetrician-gynaecologists (OBG), and (0.2%) 31 others. Cross-sectional analysis examined PCPs perceived effectiveness of SM, and recommendation for SM in response to hypothetical case scenarios. PCPs responses were measured using 4-5 point adjectival scales. Differences in perceived effectiveness and recommendations for SM were examined after adjusting for PCPs specialty, race/ethnicity, and the US region.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Compared to IM and FP, OBG considered SM more effective in reducing breast cancer mortality among women aged 40-49 years (<it>p </it>= 0.003). Physicians consistently recommended mammography to women aged 50-69 years with no differences by specialty (<it>p </it>= 0.11). However, 94% of OBG "always recommended" SM to younger and 86% of older women compared to 81% and 67% for IM and 84% and 59% for FP respectively (<it>p = </it>< .001). In ordinal regression analysis, OBG specialty was a significant predictor for perceived higher SM effectiveness and recommendations for younger and older women. In evaluating hypothetical scenarios, overall PCPs would recommend SM for the 80 year woman with CHF with a significant variation by specialty (38% of OBG, 18% of FP, 17% of IM; <it>p </it>= < .001).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>A majority of physicians, especially OBG, favour aggressive breast cancer screening for women from 40 through 79 years of age, including women with short life expectancy. Policy interventions should focus on educating providers to provide tailored recommendations for mammography based on individualized cancer risk, health status, and preferences.</p

Immediate versus sustained effects: interrupted time series analysis of a tailored intervention

Background: Detailed intervention descriptions and robust evaluations that test intervention impact—and explore reasons for impact—are an essential part of progressing implementation science. Time series designs enable the impact and sustainability of intervention effects to be tested. When combined with time series designs, qualitative methods can provide insight into intervention effectiveness and help identify areas for improvement for future interventions. This paper describes the development, delivery, and evaluation of a tailored intervention designed to increase primary health care professionals’ adoption of a national recommendation that women with mild to moderate postnatal depression (PND) are referred for psychological therapy as a first stage treatment. Methods: Three factors influencing referral for psychological treatment were targeted using three related intervention components: a tailored educational meeting, a tailored educational leaflet, and changes to an electronic system data template used by health professionals during consultations for PND. Evaluation comprised time series analysis of monthly audit data on percentage referral rates and monthly first prescription rates for anti-depressants. Interviews were conducted with a sample of health professionals to explore their perceptions of the intervention components and to identify possible factors influencing intervention effectiveness. Results: The intervention was associated with a significant, immediate, positive effect upon percentage referral rates for psychological treatments. This effect was not sustained over the ten month follow-on period. Monthly rates of anti-depressant prescriptions remained consistently high after the intervention. Qualitative interview findings suggest key messages received from the intervention concerned what appropriate antidepressant prescribing is, suggesting this to underlie the lack of impact upon prescribing rates. However, an understanding that psychological treatment can have long-term benefits was also cited. Barriers to referral identified before intervention were cited again after the intervention, suggesting the intervention had not successfully tackled the barriers targeted. Conclusion: A time series design allowed the initial and sustained impact of our intervention to be tested. Combined with qualitative interviews, this provided insight into intervention effectiveness. Future research should test factors influencing intervention sustainability, and promote adoption of the targeted behavior and dis-adoption of competing behaviors where appropriate

Transferring research from a university to the United Kingdom National Health Service : The implications for impact

This is an Open Access article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.The aim of this article is to inform readers of the author's reflections on the experience of transferring universitybased research into the commercial sector, and of the processes and strategies employed when preparing for impact in so doing. Concepts for the transfer are illustrated by the author's reflection on aspects that arose during the birthing and subsequent start-up of a university spin-off, Pathways2Wellbeing, a form of reflection-on-action. This is the vehicle for the adaption required to transfer research into the delivery of a specialised clinic in the United Kingdom National Health Service for people with medically unexplained, persistent, bodily symptoms such as fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue and chronic pain. It is hoped that the article will provide readers with an insight into how knowledge transfer can take place through engagement with stakeholders to create an exchange of knowledges to result in impact on health service policy for service users, despite the challenges, and the enablers that facilitated this process. The reflections on the process of knowledge transfer and the implications for impact are underpinned by relevant theory.Peer reviewedFinal Published versio

Understanding uptake of continuous quality improvement in Indigenous primary health care: lessons from a multi-site case study of the Audit and Best Practice for Chronic Disease project

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Experimentation with continuous quality improvement (CQI) processes is well underway in Indigenous Australian primary health care. To date, little research into how health organizations take up, support, and embed these complex innovations is available on which services can draw to inform implementation. In this paper, we examine the practices and processes in the policy and organisational contexts, and aim to explore the ways in which they interact to support and/or hinder services' participation in a large scale Indigenous primary health care CQI program.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We took a theory-driven approach, drawing on literature on the theory and effectiveness of CQI systems and the Greenhalgh diffusion of innovation framework. Data included routinely collected regional and service profile data; uptake of tools and progress through the first CQI cycle, and data collected quarterly from hub coordinators on their perceptions of barriers and enablers. A total of 48 interviews were also conducted with key people involved in the development, dissemination, and implementation of the Audit and Best Practice for Chronic Disease (ABCD) project. We compiled the various data, conducted thematic analyses, and developed an in-depth narrative account of the processes of uptake and diffusion into services.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Uptake of CQI was a complex and messy process that happened in fits and starts, was often characterised by conflicts and tensions, and was iterative, reactive, and transformational. Despite initial enthusiasm, the mixed successes during the first cycle were associated with the interaction of features of the environment, the service, the quality improvement process, and the stakeholders, which operated to produce a set of circumstances that either inhibited or enabled the process of change. Organisations had different levels of capacity to mobilize resources that could shift the balance toward supporting implementation. Different forms of leadership and organisational linkages were critical to success. The Greenhalgh framework provided a useful starting point for investigation, but we believe it is more a descriptive than explanatory model. As such, it has limitations in the extent to which it could assist us in understanding the interactions of the practices and processes that we observed at different levels of the system.</p> <p>Summary</p> <p>Taking up CQI involved engaging multiple stakeholders in new relationships that could support services to construct shared meaning and purpose, operationalise key concepts and tools, and develop and embed new practices into services systems and routines. Promoting quality improvement requires a system approach and organization-wide commitment. At the organization level, a formal high-level mandate, leadership at all levels, and resources to support implementation are needed. At the broader system level, governance arrangements that can fulfil a number of policy objectives related to articulating the linkages between CQI and other aspects of the regulatory, financing, and performance frameworks within the health system would help define a role and vision for quality improvement.</p

Evaluation of a Theory-Informed Implementation Intervention for the Management of Acute Low Back Pain in General Medical Practice: The IMPLEMENT Cluster Randomised Trial

Introduction: This cluster randomised trial evaluated an intervention to decrease x-ray referrals and increase giving advice to stay active for people with acute low back pain (LBP) in general practice. Methods: General practices were randomised to either access to a guideline for acute LBP (control) or facilitated interactive workshops (intervention). We measured behavioural predictors (e.g. knowledge, attitudes and intentions) and fear avoidance beliefs. We were unable to recruit sufficient patients to measure our original primary outcomes so we introduced other outcomes measured at the general practitioner (GP) level: behavioural simulation (clinical decision about vignettes) and rates of x-ray and CT-scan (medical administrative data). All those not involved in the delivery of the intervention were blinded to allocation. Results: 47 practices (53 GPs) were randomised to the control and 45 practices (59 GPs) to the intervention. The number of GPs available for analysis at 12 months varied by outcome due to missing confounder information; a minimum of 38 GPs were available from the intervention group, and a minimum of 40 GPs from the control group. For the behavioural constructs, although effect estimates were small, the intervention group GPs had greater intention of practising consistent with the guideline for the clinical behaviour of x-ray referral. For behavioural simulation, intervention group GPs were more likely to adhere to guideline recommendations about x-ray (OR 1.76, 95%CI 1.01, 3.05) and more likely to give advice to stay active (OR 4.49, 95%CI 1.90 to 10.60). Imaging referral was not statistically significantly different between groups and the potential importance of effects was unclear; rate ratio 0.87 (95%CI 0.68, 1.10) for x-ray or CT-scan. Conclusions: The intervention led to small changes in GP intention to practice in a manner that is consistent with an evidence-based guideline, but it did not result in statistically significant changes in actual behaviour. Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN01260600009853