Measures for assessing practice change in medical practitioners

BACKGROUND: There are increasing numbers of randomised trials and systematic reviews examining the efficacy of interventions designed to bring about a change in clinical practice. The findings of this research are being used to guide strategies to increase the uptake of evidence into clinical practice. Knowledge of the outcomes measured by these trials is vital not only for the interpretation and application of the work done to date, but also to inform future research in this expanding area of endeavour and to assist in collation of results in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. METHODS: The objective of this review was to identify methods used to measure change in the clinical practices of health professionals following an intervention aimed at increasing the uptake of evidence into practice. All published trials included in a recent, comprehensive Health Technology Assessment of interventions to implement clinical practice guidelines and change clinical practice (n = 228) formed the sample for this study. Using a standardised data extraction form, one reviewer (SH), extracted the relevant information from the methods and/or results sections of the trials. RESULTS: Measures of a change of health practitioner behaviour were the most common, with 88.8% of trials using these as outcome measures. Measures that assessed change at a patient level, either actual measures of change or surrogate measures of change, were used in 28.8% and 36.7% of studies (respectively). Health practitioners' knowledge and attitudes were assessed in 22.8% of the studies and changes at an organisational level were assessed in 17.6%. CONCLUSION: Most trials of interventions aimed at changing clinical practice measured the effect of the intervention at the level of the practitioner, i.e. did the practitioner change what they do, or has their knowledge of and/or attitude toward that practice changed? Less than one-third of the trials measured, whether or not any change in practice, resulted in a change in the ultimate end-point of patient health status

Disproportionate Intrauterine Growth Intervention Trial At Term: DIGITAT

Contains fulltext : 65628.pdf ( ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Around 80% of intrauterine growth restricted (IUGR) infants are born at term. They have an increase in perinatal mortality and morbidity including behavioral problems, minor developmental delay and spastic cerebral palsy. Management is controversial, in particular the decision whether to induce labour or await spontaneous delivery with strict fetal and maternal surveillance. We propose a randomised trial to compare effectiveness, costs and maternal quality of life for induction of labour versus expectant management in women with a suspected IUGR fetus at term. METHODS/DESIGN: The proposed trial is a multi-centre randomised study in pregnant women who are suspected on clinical grounds of having an IUGR child at a gestational age between 36+0 and 41+0 weeks. After informed consent women will be randomly allocated to either induction of labour or expectant management with maternal and fetal monitoring. Randomisation will be web-based. The primary outcome measure will be a composite neonatal morbidity and mortality. Secondary outcomes will be severe maternal morbidity, maternal quality of life and costs. Moreover, we aim to assess neurodevelopmental and neurobehavioral outcome at two years as assessed by a postal enquiry (Child Behavioral Check List-CBCL and Ages and Stages Questionnaire-ASQ). Analysis will be by intention to treat. Quality of life analysis and a preference study will also be performed in the same study population. Health technology assessment with an economic analysis is part of this so called Digitat trial (Disproportionate Intrauterine Growth Intervention Trial At Term). The study aims to include 325 patients per arm. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide evidence for which strategy is superior in terms of neonatal and maternal morbidity and mortality, costs and maternal quality of life aspects. This will be the first randomised trial for IUGR at term. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register and ISRCTN-Register: ISRCTN10363217

A core outcome set for evaluating self-management interventions in people with comorbid diabetes and severe mental illness : study protocol for a modified Delphi study and systematic review

BACKGROUND: People with diabetes and comorbid severe mental illness (SMI) form a growing population at risk of increased mortality and morbidity compared to those with diabetes or SMI alone. There is increasing interest in interventions that target diabetes in SMI in order to help to improve physical health and reduce the associated health inequalities. However, there is a lack of consensus about which outcomes are important for this comorbid population, with trials differing in their focus on physical and mental health. A core outcome set, which includes outcomes across both conditions that are relevant to patients and other key stakeholders, is needed. METHODS: This study protocol describes methods to develop a core outcome set for use in effectiveness trials of self-management interventions for adults with comorbid type-2 diabetes and SMI. We will use a modified Delphi method to identify, rank, and agree core outcomes. This will comprise a two-round online survey and multistakeholder workshops involving patients and carers, health and social care professionals, health care commissioners, and other experts (e.g. academic researchers and third sector organisations). We will also select appropriate measurement tools for each outcome in the proposed core set and identify gaps in measures, where these exist. DISCUSSION: The proposed core outcome set will provide clear guidance about what outcomes should be measured, as a minimum, in trials of interventions for people with coexisting type-2 diabetes and SMI, and improve future synthesis of trial evidence in this area. We will also explore the challenges of using online Delphi methods for this hard-to-reach population, and examine differences in opinion about which outcomes matter to diverse stakeholder groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION: COMET registration: http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/911 . Registered on 1 July 2016

Standardizing endpoints in perioperative research

Measuring patient-relevant, clinically important, and valid outcomes is fundamental to the delivery of high-quality clinical care and to the innovation and development of such care through research. As surgical innovations become more complex and the burden of age and comorbidities in the surgical patient population continues to increase, understanding the benefits and harms of surgical interventions becomes ever more important. Nevertheless, we can understand only what we can adequately describe. Truly collaborative decision-making, delivery of safe effective care, and on-going quality improvement are also critically dependent on reliable valid measurement of patient-relevant and clinically important data. Attempts to describe the full spectrum of outcomes following surgery necessarily entail moving beyond the traditional endpoints of mortality and resource use towards more complex measures of morbidity, patient-reported outcomes, and functional status. Without standardization and consensus to guide the use of increasingly complex and nuanced endpoints, there is a real risk that perioperative research will become embroiled in a mire of inconsistent heterogeneous outcome measures that cannot be meaningfully compared and contrasted between trials or combined within meta-analyses. This would result in limiting the value of the research effort and depriving patients and clinicians of definitive answers. Collaboration in perioperative medicine-whether between institutions or across continents-has enormous potential to improve the value of research output. Standardizing endpoints for outcome measurement is fundamental to maximizing the quality of such collaboration and ensuring the impact of future perioperative research