The landscape of knowledge translation interventions in cancer control: What do we know and where to next? A review of systematic reviews

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Effective implementation strategies are needed to optimize advancements in the fields of cancer diagnosis, treatment, survivorship, and end-of-life care. We conducted a review of systematic reviews to better understand the evidentiary base of implementation strategies in cancer control.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Using three databases, we conducted a search and identified English-language systematic reviews published between 2005 and 2010 that targeted consumer, professional, organizational, regulatory, or financial interventions, tested exclusively or partially in a cancer context (primary focus); generic or non-cancer-specific reviews were also considered. Data were extracted, appraised, and analyzed by members of the research team, and research ideas to advance the field were proposed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Thirty-four systematic reviews providing 41 summaries of evidence on 19 unique interventions comprised the evidence base. AMSTAR quality ratings ranged between 2 and 10. Team members rated most of the interventions as promising and in need of further research, and 64 research ideas were identified.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>While many interventions show promise of effectiveness in the cancer-control context, few reviews were able to conclude definitively in favor of or against a specific intervention. We discuss the complexity of implementation research and offer suggestions to advance the science in this area.</p

Can surveying practitioners about their practices help identify priority clinical practice guideline topics?

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines are systematically developed statements designed to assist in patient and physician clinical decision making for specific clinical circumstances. In order to establish which guideline topics are priorities, practitioners were surveyed regarding their current practice. METHODS: One hundred ninety-seven practitioners in Ontario, Canada were mailed a survey exploring their current practice or opinion regarding the prophylactic use of anticonvulsant drugs in patients with malignant glioma who had never had a seizure. The survey consisted of seven questions regarding the relevance of a guideline on the subject to the practitioner's practice, the proportion of clinical cases involving anticonvulsant use, knowledge of existing guidelines on this topic, interest in reviewing a completed practice guideline and three clinical scenarios. RESULTS: There were 122 respondents who returned the survey (62% rate of return). Eighty percent of the practitioners who responded indicated that less than 25% of their clinical cases involved the use of anticonvulsants; however, only 16% of respondents indicated that a practice guideline would be irrelevant to their practice. Eighty percent of respondents volunteered to review a draft version of a practice guideline on the use of anticonvulsants. The survey presented the practitioners with three scenarios where anticonvulsants in patients with brain tumours may be appropriate: peri-operatively in patients without seizures, postoperatively in patients currently using anticonvulsants, and thirdly in patients not currently using anticonvulsants or undergoing surgery. In contrast to the third situation, the first two situations yielded considerable variation in practitioner response. CONCLUSION: The survey established that there is some variation present in the current practice of anticonvulsant use in the patients with brain tumours. Whether there is an optimal treatment practice has yet to be determined. Practitioners do seem to feel that a guideline on anticonvulsant use in warranted, and most practitioners would be interested in being part of the guideline development process

How can diagnostic assessment programs be implemented to enhance inter-professional collaborative care for cancer?

BackgroundInter-professional collaborative care (ICC) for cancer leads to multiple system, organizational, professional, and patient benefits, but is limited by numerous challenges. Empirical research on interventions that promote or enable ICC is sparse so guidance on how to achieve ICC is lacking. Research shows that ICC for diagnosis could be improved. Diagnostic assessment programs (DAPs) appear to be a promising model for enabling ICC. The purpose of this study was to explore how DAP structure and function enable ICC, and whether that may be associated with organizational and clinical outcomes.MethodsA case study approach will be used to explore ICC among eight DAPs that vary by type of cancer (lung, breast), academic status, and geographic region. To describe DAP function and outcomes, and gather information that will enable costing, recommendations expressed in DAP standards and clinical guidelines will be assessed through retrospective observational study. Data will be acquired from databases maintained by participating DAPs and the provincial cancer agency, and confirmed by and supplemented with review of medical records. We will conduct a pilot study to explore the feasibility of estimating the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio using person-level data from medical records and other sources. Interviews will be conducted with health professionals, staff, and referring physicians from each DAP to learn about barriers and facilitators of ICC. Qualitative methods based on a grounded approach will be used to guide sampling, data collection and analysis.DiscussionFindings may reveal opportunities for unique structures, interventions or tools that enable ICC that could be developed, implemented, and evaluated through future research. This information will serve as a formative needs assessment to identify the nature of ongoing or required improvements, which can be directly used by our decision maker collaborators, and as a framework by policy makers, cancer system managers, and DAP managers elsewhere to strategically plan for and implement diagnostic cancer services

How can we improve guideline use? A conceptual framework of implementability

BACKGROUND: Guidelines continue to be underutilized, and a variety of strategies to improve their use have been suboptimal. Modifying guideline features represents an alternative, but untested way to promote their use. The purpose of this study was to identify and define features that facilitate guideline use, and examine whether and how they are included in current guidelines. METHODS: A guideline implementability framework was developed by reviewing the implementation science literature. We then examined whether guidelines included these, or additional implementability elements. Data were extracted from publicly available high quality guidelines reflecting primary and institutional care, reviewed independently by two individuals, who through discussion resolved conflicts, then by the research team. RESULTS: The final implementability framework included 22 elements organized in the domains of adaptability, usability, validity, applicability, communicability, accommodation, implementation, and evaluation. Data were extracted from 20 guidelines on the management of diabetes, hypertension, leg ulcer, and heart failure. Most contained a large volume of graded, narrative evidence, and tables featuring complementary clinical information. Few contained additional features that could improve guideline use. These included alternate versions for different users and purposes, summaries of evidence and recommendations, information to facilitate interaction with and involvement of patients, details of resource implications, and instructions on how to locally promote and monitor guideline use. There were no consistent trends by guideline topic. CONCLUSIONS: Numerous opportunities were identified by which guidelines could be modified to support various types of decision making by different users. New governance structures may be required to accommodate development of guidelines with these features. Further research is needed to validate the proposed framework of guideline implementability, develop methods for preparing this information, and evaluate how inclusion of this information influences guideline use

Written informed consent and selection bias in observational studies using medical records: systematic review

Objectives To determine whether informed consent introduces selection bias in prospective observational studies using data from medical records, and consent rates for such studies

E-learning interventions are comparable to user's manual in a randomized trial of training strategies for the AGREE II

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Practice guidelines (PGs) are systematically developed statements intended to assist in patient and practitioner decisions. The AGREE II is the revised tool for PG development, reporting, and evaluation, comprised of 23 items, two global rating scores, and a new User's Manual. In this study, we sought to develop, execute, and evaluate the impact of two internet interventions designed to accelerate the capacity of stakeholders to use the AGREE II.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Participants were randomized to one of three training conditions. 'Tutorial'--participants proceeded through the online tutorial with a virtual coach and reviewed a PDF copy of the AGREE II. 'Tutorial + Practice Exercise'--in addition to the Tutorial, participants also appraised a 'practice' PG. For the practice PG appraisal, participants received feedback on how their scores compared to expert norms and formative feedback if scores fell outside the predefined range. <it>'</it>AGREE II User's Manual PDF (control condition)'<it>--</it>participants reviewed a PDF copy of the AGREE II only. All participants evaluated a test PG using the AGREE II. Outcomes of interest were learners' performance, satisfaction, self-efficacy, mental effort, time-on-task, and perceptions of AGREE II.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>No differences emerged between training conditions on any of the outcome measures.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>We believe these results can be explained by better than anticipated performance of the AGREE II PDF materials (control condition) or the participants' level of health methodology and PG experience rather than the failure of the online training interventions. Some data suggest the online tools may be useful for trainees new to this field; however, this requires further study.</p

What implementation interventions increase cancer screening rates? a systematic review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Appropriate screening may reduce the mortality and morbidity of colorectal, breast, and cervical cancers. However, effective implementation strategies are warranted if the full benefits of screening are to be realized. As part of a larger agenda to create an implementation guideline, we conducted a systematic review to evaluate interventions designed to increase the rate of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. The interventions considered were: client reminders, client incentives, mass media, small media, group education, one-on-one education, reduction in structural barriers, reduction in out-of-pocket costs, provider assessment and feedback interventions, and provider incentives. Our primary outcome, screening completion, was calculated as the overall median post-intervention absolute percentage point (PP) change in completed screening tests.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Our first step was to conduct an iterative scoping review in the research area. This yielded three relevant high-quality systematic reviews. Serving as our evidentiary foundation, we conducted a formal update. Randomized controlled trials and cluster randomized controlled trials, published between 2004 and 2010, were searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE and PSYCHinfo.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The update yielded 66 studies new eligible studies with 74 comparisons. The new studies ranged considerably in quality. Client reminders, small media, and provider audit and feedback appear to be effective interventions to increase the uptake of screening for three cancers. One-on-one education and reduction of structural barriers also appears effective, but their roles with CRC and cervical screening, respectively, are less established. More study is required to assess client incentives, mass media, group education, reduction of out-of-pocket costs, and provider incentive interventions.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The new evidence generally aligns with the evidence and conclusions from the original systematic reviews. This review served as the evidentiary foundation for an implementation guideline. Poor reporting, lack of precision and consistency in defining operational elements, and insufficient consideration of context and differences among populations are areas for additional research.</p

Use of theory to plan or evaluate guideline implementation among physicians: a scoping review

BACKGROUND: Guidelines support health care decision-making and high quality care and outcomes. However, their implementation is sub-optimal. Theory-informed, tailored implementation is associated with guideline use. Few guideline implementation studies published up to 1998 employed theory. This study aimed to describe if and how theory is now used to plan or evaluate guideline implementation among physicians. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library were searched from 2006 to April 2016. English language studies that planned or evaluated guideline implementation targeted to physicians based on explicitly named theory were eligible. Screening and data extraction were done in duplicate. Study characteristics and details about theory use were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 1244 published reports were identified, 891 were unique, and 716 were excluded based on title and abstract. Among 175 full-text articles, 89 planned or evaluated guideline implementation targeted to physicians; 42 (47.2%) were based on theory and included. The number of studies using theory increased yearly and represented a wide array of countries, guideline topics and types of physicians. The Theory of Planned Behavior (38.1%) and the Theoretical Domains Framework (23.8%) were used most frequently. Many studies rationalized choice of theory (83.3%), most often by stating that the theory described implementation or its determinants, but most failed to explicitly link barriers with theoretical constructs. The majority of studies used theory to inform surveys or interviews that identified barriers of guideline use as a preliminary step in implementation planning (76.2%). All studies that evaluated interventions reported positive impact on reported physician or patient outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: While the use of theory to design or evaluate interventions appears to be increasing over time, this review found that one half of guideline implementation studies were based on theory and many of those provided scant details about how theory was used. This limits interpretation and replication of those interventions, and seems to result in multifaceted interventions, which may not be feasible outside of scientific investigation. Further research is needed to better understand how to employ theory in guideline implementation planning or evaluation. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-017-0557-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users