40 research outputs found

    The effect of provider- and workflow-focused strategies for guideline implementation on provider acceptance

    Get PDF
    <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The effective implementation of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) depends critically on the extent to which the strategies that are deployed for implementing the guidelines promote provider acceptance of CPGs. Such implementation strategies can be classified into two types based on whether they primarily target providers (<it>e.g.</it>, academic detailing, grand rounds presentations) or the work context (<it>e.g.</it>, computer reminders, modifications to forms). This study investigated the independent and joint effects of these two types of implementation strategies on provider acceptance of CPGs.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Surveys were mailed to a national sample of providers (primary care physicians, physician assistants, nurses, and nurse practitioners) and quality managers selected from Veterans Affairs Medical Centers (VAMCs). A total of 2,438 providers and 242 quality managers from 123 VAMCs participated. Survey items measured implementation strategies and provider acceptance (<it>e.g.</it>, guideline-related knowledge, attitudes, and adherence) for three sets of CPGs--chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic heart failure, and major depressive disorder. The relationships between implementation strategy types and provider acceptance were tested using multi-level analytic models.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>For all three CPGs, provider acceptance increased with the number of implementation strategies of either type. Moreover, the number of workflow-focused strategies compensated (contributing more strongly to provider acceptance) when few provider-focused strategies were used.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Provider acceptance of CPGs depends on the type of implementation strategies used. Implementation effectiveness can be improved by using both workflow-focused as well as provider-focused strategies.</p

    The cost-effectiveness of domiciliary non-invasive ventilation in patients with end-stage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease:a systematic review and economic evaluation

    Get PDF
    Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a chronic progressive lung disease characterised by non-reversible airflow obstruction. Exacerbations are a key cause of morbidity and mortality and place a considerable burden on health-care systems. While there is evidence that patients benefit from non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in hospital during an acute exacerbation, evidence supporting home use for more stable COPD patients is limited. In the UK, domiciliary NIV is considered on health economic grounds in patients after three hospital admissions for acute hypercapnic respiratory failure. Objective: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of domiciliary NIV by systematic review and economic evaluation. Data sources: Bibliographic databases, conference proceedings and ongoing trial registries up to September 2014. Methods: Standard systematic review methods were used for identifying relevant clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness studies assessing NIV compared with usual care or comparing different types of NIV. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane guidelines and relevant economic checklists. Results for primary effectiveness outcomes (mortality, hospitalisations, exacerbations and quality of life) were presented, where possible, in forest plots. A speculative Markov decision model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of domiciliary NIV with usual care from a UK perspective for post-hospital and more stable populations separately. Results: Thirty-one controlled effectiveness studies were identified, which report a variety of outcomes. For stable patients, a modest volume of evidence found no benefit from domiciliary NIV for survival and some non-significant beneficial trends for hospitalisations and quality of life. For post-hospital patients, no benefit from NIV could be shown in terms of survival (from randomised controlled trials) and findings for hospital admissions were inconsistent and based on limited evidence. No conclusions could be drawn regarding potential benefit from different types of NIV. No cost-effectiveness studies of domiciliary NIV were identified. Economic modelling suggested that NIV may be cost-effective in a stable population at a threshold of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio £28,162), but this is associated with uncertainty. In the case of the post-hospital population, results for three separate base cases ranged from usual care dominating to NIV being cost-effective, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of less than £10,000 per QALY gained. All estimates were sensitive to effectiveness estimates, length of benefit from NIV (currently unknown) and some costs. Modelling suggested that reductions in the rate of hospital admissions per patient per year of 24% and 15% in the stable and post-hospital populations, respectively, are required for NIV to be cost-effective. Limitations: Evidence on key clinical outcomes remains limited, particularly quality-of-life and long-term (> 2 years) effects. Economic modelling should be viewed as speculative because of uncertainty around effect estimates, baseline risks, length of benefit of NIV and limited quality-of-life/utility data. Conclusions: The cost-effectiveness of domiciliary NIV remains uncertain and the findings in this report are sensitive to emergent data. Further evidence is required to identify patients most likely to benefit from domiciliary NIV and to establish optimum time points for starting NIV and equipment settings. Future work recommendations: The results from this report will need to be re-examined in the light of any new trial results, particularly in terms of reducing the uncertainty in the economic model. Any new randomised controlled trials should consider including a sham non-invasive ventilation arm and/or a higher- and lower-pressure arm. Individual participant data analyses may help to determine whether or not there are any patient characteristics or equipment settings that are predictive of a benefit of NIV and to establish optimum time points for starting (and potentially discounting) NIV. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012003286. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme

    Global and regional estimates for COPD prevalence: Systematic review and meta-analysis

    Get PDF
    Background The burden of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) across many world regions is high. We aim to estimate COPD prevalence and number of disease cases for the years 1990 and 2010 across world regions based on the best available evidence in publicly accessible scientific databases. Methods We conducted a systematic search of Medline, EMBASE and Global Health for original, population–based studies providing spirometry– based prevalence rates of COPD across the world from January 1990 to December 2014. Random effects meta–analysis was conducted on extracted crude prevalence rates of COPD, with overall summaries of the meta–estimates (and confidence intervals) reported separately for World Health Organization (WHO) regions, the World Bank's income categories and settings (urban and rural). We developed a meta–regression epidemiological model that we used to estimate the prevalence of COPD in people aged 30 years or more. Findings Our search returned 37 472 publications. A total of 123 studies based on a spirometry–defined prevalence were retained for the review. From the meta–regression epidemiological model, we estimated about 227.3 million COPD cases in the year 1990 among people aged 30 years or more, corresponding to a global prevalence of 10.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) 7.3%–14.0%) in this age group. The number of COPD cases increased to 384 million in 2010, with a global prevalence of 11.7% (8.4%–15.0%). This increase of 68.9% was mainly driven by global demographic changes. Across WHO regions, the highest prevalence was estimated in the Americas (13.3% in 1990 and 15.2% in 2010), and the lowest in South East Asia (7.9% in 1990 and 9.7% in 2010). The percentage increase in COPD cases between 1990 and 2010 was the highest in the Eastern Mediterranean region (118.7%), followed by the African region (102.1%), while the European region recorded the lowest increase (22.5%). In 1990, we estimated about 120.9 million COPD cases among urban dwellers (prevalence of 13.2%) and 106.3 million cases among rural dwellers (prevalence of 8.8%). In 2010, there were more than 230 million COPD cases among urban dwellers (prevalence of 13.6%) and 153.7 million among rural dwellers (prevalence of 9.7%). The overall prevalence in men aged 30 years or more was 14.3% (95% CI 13.3%–15.3%) compared to 7.6% (95% CI 7.0%– 8.2%) in women. Conclusions Our findings suggest a high and growing prevalence of COPD, both globally and regionally. There is a paucity of studies in Africa, South East Asia and the Eastern Mediterranean region. There is a need for governments, policy makers and international organizations to consider strengthening collaborations to address COPD globall
    corecore