Developing the content of two behavioural interventions : using theory-based interventions to promote GP management of upper respiratory tract infection without prescribing antibiotics #1

Background: Evidence shows that antibiotics have limited effectiveness in the management of upper respiratory tract infection (URTI) yet GPs continue to prescribe antibiotics. Implementation research does not currently provide a strong evidence base to guide the choice of interventions to promote the uptake of such evidence-based practice by health professionals. While systematic reviews demonstrate that interventions to change clinical practice can be effective, heterogeneity between studies hinders generalisation to routine practice. Psychological models of behaviour change that have been used successfully to predict variation in behaviour in the general population can also predict the clinical behaviour of healthcare professionals. The purpose of this study was to design two theoretically-based interventions to promote the management of upper respiratory tract infection (URTI) without prescribing antibiotics. Method: Interventions were developed using a systematic, empirically informed approach in which we: selected theoretical frameworks; identified modifiable behavioural antecedents that predicted GPs intended and actual management of URTI; mapped these target antecedents on to evidence-based behaviour change techniques; and operationalised intervention components in a format suitable for delivery by postal questionnaire. Results: We identified two psychological constructs that predicted GP management of URTI: "Self-efficacy," representing belief in one's capabilities, and "Anticipated consequences," representing beliefs about the consequences of one's actions. Behavioural techniques known to be effective in changing these beliefs were used in the design of two paper-based, interactive interventions. Intervention 1 targeted self-efficacy and required GPs to consider progressively more difficult situations in a "graded task" and to develop an "action plan" of what to do when next presented with one of these situations. Intervention 2 targeted anticipated consequences and required GPs to respond to a "persuasive communication" containing a series of pictures representing the consequences of managing URTI with and without antibiotics. Conclusion: It is feasible to systematically develop theoretically-based interventions to change professional practice. Two interventions were designed that differentially target generalisable constructs predictive of GP management of URTI. Our detailed and scientific rationale for the choice and design of our interventions will provide a basis for understanding any effects identified in their evaluation. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00376142This study is funded by the European Commission Research Directorate as part of a multi-partner program: Research Based Education and Quality Improvement (ReBEQI): A Framework and tools to develop effective quality improvement programs in European healthcare. (Proposal No: QLRT-2001-00657)

Understanding factors associated with the translation of cardiovascular research: A multinational case study approach

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited.This article has been made available through the Brunel Open Access Publishing Fund.Background: Funders of health research increasingly seek to understand how best to allocate resources in order to achieve maximum value from their funding. We built an international consortium and developed a multinational case study approach to assess benefits arising from health research. We used that to facilitate analysis of factors in the production of research that might be associated with translating research findings into wider impacts, and the complexities involved. Methods: We built on the Payback Framework and expanded its application through conducting co-ordinated case studies on the payback from cardiovascular and stroke research in Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom. We selected a stratified random sample of projects from leading medical research funders. We devised a series of innovative steps to: minimize the effect of researcher bias; rate the level of impacts identified in the case studies; and interrogate case study narratives to identify factors that correlated with achieving high or low levels of impact. Results: Twenty-nine detailed case studies produced many and diverse impacts. Over the 15 to 20 years examined, basic biomedical research has a greater impact than clinical research in terms of academic impacts such as knowledge production and research capacity building. Clinical research has greater levels of wider impact on health policies, practice, and generating health gains. There was no correlation between knowledge production and wider impacts. We identified various factors associated with high impact. Interaction between researchers and practitioners and the public is associated with achieving high academic impact and translation into wider impacts, as is basic research conducted with a clinical focus. Strategic thinking by clinical researchers, in terms of thinking through pathways by which research could potentially be translated into practice, is associated with high wider impact. Finally, we identified the complexity of factors behind research translation that can arise in a single case. Conclusions: We can systematically assess research impacts and use the findings to promote translation. Research funders can justify funding research of diverse types, but they should not assume academic impacts are proxies for wider impacts. They should encourage researchers to consider pathways towards impact and engage potential research users in research processes. © 2014 Wooding et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.RAND Europe and HERG, with subsequent funding from the NHFA, the HSFC and the CIHR. This research was also partially supported by the Policy Research Programme in the English Department of Health

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

IMPLEmenting a clinical practice guideline for acute low back pain evidence-based manageMENT in general practice (IMPLEMENT) : cluster randomised controlled trial study protocol

Background: Evidence generated from reliable research is not frequently implemented into clinical practice. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines are a potential vehicle to achieve this. A recent systematic review of implementation strategies of guideline dissemination concluded that there was a lack of evidence regarding effective strategies to promote the uptake of guidelines. Recommendations from this review, and other studies, have suggested the use of interventions that are theoretically based because these may be more effective than those that are not. An evidencebased clinical practice guideline for the management of acute low back pain was recently developed in Australia. This provides an opportunity to develop and test a theory-based implementation intervention for a condition which is common, has a high burden, and for which there is an evidence-practice gap in the primary care setting. Aim: This study aims to test the effectiveness of a theory-based intervention for implementing a clinical practice guideline for acute low back pain in general practice in Victoria, Australia. Specifically, our primary objectives are to establish if the intervention is effective in reducing the percentage of patients who are referred for a plain x-ray, and improving mean level of disability for patients three months post-consultation. Methods/Design: This study protocol describes the details of a cluster randomised controlled trial. Ninety-two general practices (clusters), which include at least one consenting general practitioner, will be randomised to an intervention or control arm using restricted randomisation. Patients aged 18 years or older who visit a participating practitioner for acute non-specific low back pain of less than three months duration will be eligible for inclusion. An average of twenty-five patients per general practice will be recruited, providing a total of 2,300 patient participants. General practitioners in the control arm will receive access to the guideline using the existing dissemination strategy. Practitioners in the intervention arm will be invited to participate in facilitated face-to-face workshops that have been underpinned by behavioural theory. Investigators (not involved in the delivery of the intervention), patients, outcome assessors and the study statistician will be blinded to group allocation. Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN012606000098538 (date registered 14/03/2006).The trial is funded by the NHMRC by way of a Primary Health Care Project Grant (334060). JF has 50% of her time funded by the Chief Scientist Office3/2006). of the Scottish Government Health Directorate and 50% by the University of Aberdeen. PK is supported by a NHMRC Health Professional Fellowship (384366) and RB by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (334010). JG holds a Canada Research Chair in Health Knowledge Transfer and Uptake. All other authors are funded by their own institutions

Prospective study of outcomes in Sporadic versus hereditary breast cancer (POSH): study protocol

Background: young women presenting with breast cancer are more likely to have a genetic predisposition to the disease than breast cancer patients in general. A genetic predisposition is known to increase the risk of new primary breast (and other) cancers. It is unclear from the literature whether genetic status should be taken into consideration when planning adjuvant treatment in a young woman presenting with a first primary breast cancer. The primary aim of the POSH study is to establish whether genetic status influences the prognosis of primary breast cancer independently of known prognostic factors. Methods/design: the study is a prospective cohort study recruiting 3,000 women aged 40 years or younger at breast cancer diagnosis; the recruiting period covers 1st June 2001 to 31st December 2007. Written informed consent is obtained at study entry. Family history and known epidemiological risk data are collected by questionnaire. Clinical information about diagnosis, treatment and clinical course is collected and blood is stored. Follow up data are collected annually after the first year. An additional recruitment category includes women aged 41 to 50 years who are found to be BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene carriers and were diagnosed with their first breast cancer during the study recruiting period. Discussion: power estimates were based on 10% of the cohort carrying a BRCA1 gene mutation. Preliminary BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation analysis in a pilot set of study participants confirms we should have 97% power to detect a difference of 10% in event rates between gene carriers and sporadic young onset cases. Most of the recruited patients (>80%) receive an anthracycline containing adjuvant chemotherapy regimen making planned analyses more straightforwar

A computer decision aid for medical prevention: a pilot qualitative study of the Personalized Estimate of Risks (EsPeR) system

BACKGROUND: Many preventable diseases such as ischemic heart diseases and breast cancer prevail at a large scale in the general population. Computerized decision support systems are one of the solutions for improving the quality of prevention strategies. METHODS: The system called EsPeR (Personalised Estimate of Risks) combines calculation of several risks with computerisation of guidelines (cardiovascular prevention, screening for breast cancer, colorectal cancer, uterine cervix cancer, and prostate cancer, diagnosis of depression and suicide risk). We present a qualitative evaluation of its ergonomics, as well as it's understanding and acceptance by a group of general practitioners. We organised four focus groups each including 6–11 general practitioners. Physicians worked on several structured clinical scenari os with the help of EsPeR, and three senior investigators leaded structured discussion sessions. RESULTS: The initial sessions identified several ergonomic flaws of the system that were easily corrected. Both clinical scenarios and discussion sessions identified several problems related to the insufficient comprehension (expression of risks, definition of familial history of disease), and difficulty for the physicians to accept some of the recommendations. CONCLUSION: Educational, socio-professional and organisational components (i.e. time constraints for training and use of the EsPeR system during consultation) as well as acceptance of evidence-based decision-making should be taken into account before launching computerised decision support systems, or their application in randomised trials

Defining the road map to a UK national lung cancer screening programme

Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT was recommended by the UK National Screening Committee (UKNSC) in September, 2022, on the basis of data from trials showing a reduction in lung cancer mortality. These trials provide sufficient evidence to show clinical efficacy, but further work is needed to prove deliverability in preparation for a national roll-out of the first major targeted screening programme. The UK has been world leading in addressing logistical issues with lung cancer screening through clinical trials, implementation pilots, and the National Health Service (NHS) England Targeted Lung Health Check Programme. In this Policy Review, we describe the consensus reached by a multiprofessional group of experts in lung cancer screening on the key requirements and priorities for effective implementation of a programme. We summarise the output from a round-table meeting of clinicians, behavioural scientists, stakeholder organisations, and representatives from NHS England, the UKNSC, and the four UK nations. This Policy Review will be an important tool in the ongoing expansion and evolution of an already successful programme, and provides a summary of UK expert opinion for consideration by those organising and delivering lung cancer screenings in other countries

Effect of educational outreach on general practice prescribing of antibiotics and antidepressants: a two-year randomised controlled trial

Objective. Prescribing of broad spectrum antibiotics and antidepressants in general practice often does not accord with guidelines. The aim was to determine the effectiveness of educational outreach in improving the prescribing of selected antibiotics and antidepressants, and whether the effect is sustained for two years. Design. Single blind randomized trial. Setting. Twenty-eight general practices in Leicestershire, England. Intervention. Educational outreach visits were undertaken, tailored to barriers to change, 14 practices receiving visits for reducing selected antibiotics and 14 for improving antidepressant prescribing. Main outcome measures. Number of items prescribed per 1000 registered patients for amoxicillin with clavulanic acid (co-amoxiclav) and quinolone antibiotics, and average daily quantities per 1000 patients for lofepramine and fluoxetine antidepressants, measured at the practice level for six-month periods over two years. Results. There was no effect on the prescribing of co-amoxiclav, quinolones, or fluoxetine, but prescribing of lofepramine increased in accordance with the guidelines. The increase persisted throughout two years of follow-up. Conclusion. A simple, group-level educational outreach intervention, designed to take account of identified barriers to change, can have a modest but sustained effect on prescribing levels. However, outreach is not always effective. The context in which change in prescribing practice is being sought, the views of prescribers concerning the value of the drug, or other unrecognised barriers to change may influence the effectiveness of outreach

Designing high-quality implementation research: development, application, feasibility and preliminary evaluation of the implementation science research development (ImpRes) tool and guide

Background:  Designing implementation research can be a complex and daunting task, especially for applied health researchers who have not received specialist training in implementation science. We developed the Implementation Science Research Development (ImpRes) tool and supplementary guide to address this challenge and provide researchers with a systematic approach to designing implementation research. Methods:  A multi-method and multi-stage approach was employed. An international, multidisciplinary expert panel engaged in an iterative brainstorming and consensus-building process to generate core domains of the ImpRes tool, representing core implementation science principles and concepts that researchers should consider when designing implementation research. Simultaneously, an iterative process of reviewing the literature and expert input informed the development and content of the tool. Once consensus had been reached, specialist expert input was sought on involving and engaging patients/service users; and economic evaluation. ImpRes was then applied to 15 implementation and improvement science projects across the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) South London, a research organisation in London, UK. Researchers who applied the ImpRes tool completed an 11-item questionnaire evaluating its structure, content and usefulness. Results:  Consensus was reached on ten implementation science domains to be considered when designing implementation research. These include implementation theories, frameworks and models, determinants of implementation, implementation strategies, implementation outcomes and unintended consequences. Researchers who used the ImpRes tool found it useful for identifying project areas where implementation science is lacking (median 5/5, IQR 4–5) and for improving the quality of implementation research (median 4/5, IQR 4–5) and agreed that it contained the key components that should be considered when designing implementation research (median 4/5, IQR 4–4). Qualitative feedback from researchers who applied the ImpRes tool indicated that a supplementary guide was needed to facilitate use of the tool. Conclusions:  We have developed a feasible and acceptable tool, and supplementary guide, to facilitate consideration and incorporation of core principles and concepts of implementation science in applied health implementation research. Future research is needed to establish whether application of the tool and guide has an effect on the quality of implementation research