Paucity of qualitative research in general medical and health services and policy research journals: analysis of publication rates

Abstract Background Qualitative research has the potential to inform and improve health care decisions but a study based on one year of publications suggests that it is not published in prominent health care journals. A more detailed, longitudinal analysis of its availability is needed. The purpose of this study was to identify, count and compare the number of qualitative and non-qualitative research studies published in high impact health care journals, and explore trends in these data over the last decade. Methods A bibliometric approach was used to identify and quantify qualitative articles published in 20 top general medical and health services and policy research journals from 1999 to 2008. Eligible journals were selected based on performance in four different ranking systems reported in the 2008 ISI Journal Citation Reports. Qualitative and non-qualitative research published in these journals were identified by searching MEDLINE, and validated by hand-searching tables of contents for four journals. Results The total number of qualitative research articles published during 1999 to 2008 in ten general medical journals ranged from 0 to 41, and in ten health services and policy research journals from 0 to 39. Over this period the percentage of empirical research articles that were qualitative ranged from 0% to 0.6% for the general medical journals, and 0% to 6.4% for the health services and policy research journals. Conclusions This analysis suggests that qualitative research it is rarely published in high impact general medical and health services and policy research journals. The factors that contribute to this persistent marginalization need to be better understood

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

The guideline implementability research and application network (GIRAnet): an international collaborative to support knowledge exchange: study protocol

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Modifying the format and content of guidelines may facilitate their use and lead to improved quality of care. We reviewed the medical literature to identify features desired by different users and associated with guideline use to develop a framework of implementability and found that most guidelines do not contain these elements. Further research is needed to develop and evaluate implementability tools.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We are launching the Guideline Implementability Research and Application Network (GIRAnet) to enable the development and testing of implementability tools in three domains: Resource Implications, Implementation, and Evaluation. Partners include the Guidelines International Network (G-I-N) and its member guideline developers, implementers, and researchers. In phase one, international guidelines will be examined to identify and describe exemplar tools. Indication-specific and generic tools will populate a searchable repository. In phase two, qualitative analysis of cognitive interviews will be used to understand how developers can best integrate implementability tools in guidelines and how health professionals use them for interpreting and applying guidelines. In phase three, a small-scale pilot test will assess the impact of implementability tools based on quantitative analysis of chart-based behavioural outcomes and qualitative analysis of interviews with participants. The findings will be used to plan a more comprehensive future evaluation of implementability tools.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Infrastructure funding to establish GIRAnet will be leveraged with the in-kind contributions of collaborating national and international guideline developers to advance our knowledge of implementation practice and science. Needs assessment and evaluation of GIRAnet will provide a greater understanding of how to develop and sustain such knowledge-exchange networks. Ultimately, by facilitating use of guidelines, this research may lead to improved delivery and outcomes of patient care.</p

Bias estimation in study design: a meta-epidemiological analysis of transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement

Background: Paucity of RCTs of non-drug technologies lead to widespread dependence on non-randomized studies. Relationship between nonrandomized study design attributes and biased estimates of treatment effects are poorly understood. Our purpose was to estimate the bias associated with specific nonrandomized study attributes among studies comparing transcatheter aortic valve implantation with surgical aortic valve replacement for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis. Results: We included 6 RCTs and 87 nonrandomized studies. Surgical risk scores were similar for comparison groups in RCTs, but were higher for patients having transcatheter aortic valve implantation in nonrandomized studies. Nonrandomized studies underestimated the benefit of transcatheter aortic valve implantation compared with RCTs. For example, nonrandomized studies without adjustment estimated a higher risk of postoperative mortality for transcatheter aortic valve implantation compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (OR 1.43 [95% CI 1.26 to 1.62]) than high quality RCTs (OR 0.78 [95% CI 0.54 to 1.11). Nonrandomized studies using propensity score matching (OR 1.13 [95% CI 0.85 to 1.52]) and regression modelling (OR 0.68 [95% CI 0.57 to 0.81]) to adjust results estimated treatment effects closer to high quality RCTs. Nonrandomized studies describing losses to follow-up estimated treatment effects that were significantly closer to high quality RCT than nonrandomized studies that did not. Conclusion: Studies with different attributes produce different estimates of treatment effects. Study design attributes related to the completeness of follow-up may explain biased treatment estimates in nonrandomized studies, as in the case of aortic valve replacement where high-risk patients were preferentially selected for the newer (transcatheter) procedure

Development of a synoptic MRI report for primary rectal cancer

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Although magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is an important imaging modality for pre-operative staging and surgical planning of rectal cancer, to date there has been little investigation on the completeness and overall quality of MRI reports. This is important because optimal patient care depends on the quality of the MRI report and clear communication of these reports to treating physicians. Previous work has shown that the use of synoptic pathology reports improves the quality of pathology reports and communication between physicians.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The aims of this project are to develop a synoptic MRI report for rectal cancer and determine the enablers and barriers toward the implementation of a synoptic MRI report for rectal cancer in the clinical setting. A three-step Delphi process with an expert panel will extract the key criteria for the MRI report to guide pre-operative chemoradiation and surgical planning following a review of the literature, and a synoptic template will be developed. Furthermore, standardized qualitative research methods will be used to conduct interviews with radiologists to determine the enablers and barriers to the implementation and sustainability of the synoptic MRI report in the clinic setting.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Synoptic MRI reports for rectal cancer are currently not used in North America and may improve the overall quality of MRI report and communication between physicians. This may, in turn, lead to improved patient care and outcomes for rectal cancer patients.</p

Challenges in multidisciplinary cancer care among general surgeons in Canada

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>While many factors can influence the way that cancer care is delivered, including the way that evidence is packaged and disseminated, little research has evaluated how health care professionals who manage cancer patients seek and use this information to identify whether and how this could be supported. Through interviews we identified that general surgeons experience challenges in coordinating care for complex cancer patients whose management is not easily addressed by guidelines, and conducted a population-based survey of general surgeon information needs and information seeking practices to extend these findings.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>General surgeons with privileges at acute care hospitals in Ontario, Canada were mailed a questionnaire to solicit information needs (task, importance), information seeking (source, frequency of and reasons for use), key challenges and suggested solutions. Non-responders received up to three reminder packages. Significant differences among sub-groups (age, setting) were examined statistically (Kruskal Wallis, Mann Whitney, Chi Square). Standard qualitative methods were used to thematically analyze open-ended responses.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The response rate was 44.2% (170/385) representing all 14 health regions. System resource constraints (60.4%), comorbidities (56.4%) and physiologic factors (51.8%) were top-ranked issues creating information needs. Local surgical colleagues (84.6%), other local colleagues (82.2%) and the Internet (81.1%) were top-ranked sources of information, primarily due to familiarity and speed of access. No resources were considered to be highly applicable to patient care. Challenges were related to limitations in diagnostics and staging, operative resources, and systems to support multidisciplinary care, together accounting for 76.0% of all reported issues. Findings did not differ significantly by surgeon age or setting of care.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>General surgeons appear to use a wide range of information resources but they may not address the complex needs of many cancer patients. Decision-making is challenged by informational and logistical issues related to the coordination of multidisciplinary care. This suggests that limitations in system capacity may, in part, contribute to variable guideline compliance. Further research is required to evaluate the appropriateness of information seeking, and both concurrent and consecutive mechanisms by which to achieve multidisciplinary care.</p

Number and type of guideline implementation tools varies by guideline, clinical condition, country of origin, and type of developer organization : Content analysis of guidelines

Guideline implementation tools (GI tools) can improve clinician behavior and patient outcomes. Analyses of guidelines published before 2010 found that many did not offer GI tools. Since 2010 standards, frameworks and instructions for GI tools have emerged. This study analyzed the number and types of GI tools offered by guidelines published in 2010 or later. Content analysis and a published GI tool framework were used to categorize GI tools by condition, country, and type of organization. English-language guidelines on arthritis, asthma, colorectal cancer, depression, diabetes, heart failure, and stroke management were identified in the National Guideline Clearinghouse. Screening and data extraction were in triplicate. Findings were reported with summary statistics. Eighty-five (67.5%) of 126 eligible guidelines published between 2010 and 2017 offered one or more of a total of 464 GI tools. The mean number of GI tools per guideline was 5.5 (median 4.0, range 1 to 28) and increased over time. The majority of GI tools were for clinicians (239, 51.5%), few were for patients (113, 24.4%), and fewer still were to support implementation (66, 14.3%) or evaluation (46, 9.9%). Most clinician GI tools were guideline summaries (116, 48.5%), and most patient GI tools were condition-specific information (92, 81.4%). Government agencies (patient 23.5%, clinician 28.9%, implementation 24.1%, evaluation 23.5%) and developers in the UK (patient 18.5%, clinician 25.2%, implementation 27.2%, evaluation 29.1%) were more likely to generate guidelines that offered all four types of GI tools. Professional societies were more likely to generate guidelines that included clinician GI tools. Many guidelines do not include any GI tools, or a variety of GI tools for different stakeholders that may be more likely to prompt guideline uptake (point-of-care forms or checklists for clinicians, decision-making or self-management tools for patients, implementation and evaluation tools for managers and policy-makers). While this may vary by country and type of organization, and suggests that developers could improve the range of GI tools they develop, further research is needed to identify determinants and potential solutions. Research is also needed to examine the cost-effectiveness of various types of GI tools so that developers know where to direct their efforts and scarce resources

How to implement person-centred care and support for dementia in outpatient and home/community settings: Scoping review

From Springer Nature via Jisc Publications RouterBackground: Little prior research focused on person-centred care and support (PCCS) for dementia in home, community or outpatient care. We aimed to describe what constitutes PCCS, how to implement it, and considerations for women who comprise the majority of affected persons (with dementia, carers). Methods: We conducted a scoping review by searching multiple databases from 2000 inclusive to June 7, 2020. We extracted data on study characteristics and PCCS approaches, evaluation, determinants or the impact of strategies to implement PCCS. We used summary statistics to report data and interpreted findings with an existing person-centred care framework. Results: We included 22 studies with qualitative (55%) or quantitative/multiple methods design (45%) involving affected persons (50%), or healthcare workers (50%). Studies varied in how PCCS was conceptualized; 59% cited a PCC definition or framework. Affected persons and healthcare workers largely agreed on what constitutes PCCS (e.g. foster partnership, promote autonomy, support carers). In 4 studies that evaluated care, barriers of PCCS were reported at the affected person (e.g. family conflict), healthcare worker (e.g. lack of knowledge) and organizational (e.g. resource constraints) levels. Studies that evaluated strategies to implement PCCS approaches were largely targeted to healthcare workers, and showed that in-person inter-professional educational meetings yielded both perceived (e.g. improved engagement of affected persons) and observed (e.g. use of PCCS approaches) beneficial outcomes. Few studies reported results by gender or other intersectional factors, and none revealed if or how to tailor PCCS for women. This synthesis confirmed and elaborated the PCC framework, resulting in a Framework of PCCS for Dementia. Conclusion: Despite the paucity of research on PCCS for dementia, synthesis of knowledge from diverse studies into a Framework provides interim guidance for those planning or evaluating dementia services in outpatient, home or community settings. Further research is needed to elaborate the Framework, evaluate PCCS for dementia, explore determinants, and develop strategies to implement and scale-up PCCS approaches. Such studies should explore how to tailor PCCS needs and preferences based on input from persons with dementia, and by sex/gender and other intersectional factors such as ethnicity or culture.22pubpu