Portals to Wonderland: Health portals lead to confusing information about the effects of health care

BACKGROUND: The Internet offers a seemingly endless amount of health information of varying quality. Health portals, which provide entry points to quality-controlled collections of websites, have been hailed as a solution to this problem. The objective of this study is to assess the extent to which government-run health portals provide access to relevant, valid and understandable information about the effects of health care. METHODS: We selected eight clinically relevant questions for which there was a systematic review, searched four portals for answers, and compared the answers we found to the results of the systematic reviews. RESULTS: Our searches resulted in 3400 hits, 155 of which mentioned both the condition and the intervention in one of the eight questions. Sixty-three of the 155 web pages did not give any information about the effect of the intervention. Seventy-seven qualitatively described the effects of the intervention. Twenty-six of these had information that was too unclear to be categorised; 15 were not consistent with the systematic review; and 36 were consistent with the review, but usually did not mention what happens without the intervention, what outcomes have been measured or when they were measured. Fifteen web pages quantitatively described effects. Four of these were abstracts from the systematic review, nine had information that was incomplete and potentially misleading because of a lack of information about people not receiving the intervention and the length of follow-up; one had information that was consistent with the review, but only referred to three trials whereas the review included six; and one was consistent with the review. CONCLUSION: Information accessible through health portals is unlikely to be based on systematic reviews and is often unclear, incomplete and misleading. Portals are only as good as the websites they lead to. Investments in national health portals are unlikely to benefit consumers without investments in the production and maintenance of relevant, valid and understandable information to which the portals lead

Lay perceptions of evidence-based information – a qualitative evaluation of a website for back pain sufferers

BACKGROUND: In an evidence-informed patient choice the patient has access to research-based information about the effectiveness of health care options and is encouraged to use this information in treatment decisions. This concept has seen growing popularity in recent years. However, we still know relatively little about users' attitudes to the use of research-based information, possibly because people have been unexposed to this type of information. After developing the BackInfo website where the results of Cochrane systematic reviews on the effects of low back pain were adapted and presented to lay users we evaluated how users responded to this information. METHODS: Focus group meetings were held with 18 chronic back pain sufferers, after they had been sent a link to the website before the meetings. RESULTS: The focus groups suggest that the most important challenges to the use of BackInfo's research-based information are not primarily tied to the comprehension or presentation of the information, but are mainly associated with participants' attitudes towards the credibility of research and researchers, and the applicability of research results to themselves as individuals. Possible explanations for participants' lack of trust in research and their apparent difficulties in applying this research to their own situations include aspects that may be typical for the general public including the media's presentation of research, and a lack of familiarity with and feelings of distance to research evidence. Other aspects may be typical for patient groups with chronic and unclear medical conditions, such as a lack of trust in the health care establishment in general. CONCLUSION: In order to enhance the credibility and applicability of research evidence, providers of research-based information could explore a number of possibilities including the use of including personal stories to illustrate the research outcomes

Challenges facing community health workers in Brazil’s Family Health Strategy: A qualitative study

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/144641/1/hpm2456.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/144641/2/hpm2456_am.pd

Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of doctor-nurse substitution strategies in primary care: a qualitative evidence synthesis

Item does not contain fulltextBACKGROUND: Having nurses take on tasks that are typically conducted by doctors (doctor-nurse substitution, a form of 'task-shifting') may help to address doctor shortages and reduce doctors' workload and human resource costs. A Cochrane Review of effectiveness studies suggested that nurse-led care probably leads to similar healthcare outcomes as care delivered by doctors. This finding highlights the need to explore the factors that affect the implementation of strategies to substitute doctors with nurses in primary care. In our qualitative evidence synthesis (QES), we focused on studies of nurses taking on tasks that are typically conducted by doctors working in primary care, including substituting doctors with nurses or expanding nurses' roles. OBJECTIVES: (1) To identify factors influencing implementation of interventions to substitute doctors with nurses in primary care. (2) To explore how our synthesis findings related to, and helped to explain, the findings of the Cochrane intervention review of the effectiveness of substituting doctors with nurses. (3) To identify hypotheses for subgroup analyses for future updates of the Cochrane intervention review. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CINAHL and PubMed, contacted experts in the field, scanned the reference lists of relevant studies and conducted forward citation searches for key articles in the Social Science Citation Index and Science Citation Index databases, and 'related article' searches in PubMed. SELECTION CRITERIA: We constructed a maximum variation sample (exploring variables such as country level of development, aspects of care covered and the types of participants) from studies that had collected and analysed qualitative data related to the factors influencing implementation of doctor-nurse substitution and the expansion of nurses' tasks in community or primary care worldwide. We included perspectives of doctors, nurses, patients and their families/carers, policymakers, programme managers, other health workers and any others directly involved in or affected by the substitution. We excluded studies that collected data using qualitative methods but did not analyse the data qualitatively. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We identified factors influencing implementation of doctor-nurse substitution strategies using a framework thematic synthesis approach. Two review authors independently assessed the methodological strengths and limitations of included studies using a modified Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) tool. We assessed confidence in the evidence for the QES findings using the GRADE-CERQual approach. We integrated our findings with the evidence from the effectiveness review of doctor-nurse substitution using a matrix model. Finally, we identified hypotheses for subgroup analyses for updates of the review of effectiveness. MAIN RESULTS: We included 66 studies (69 papers), 11 from low- or middle-income countries and 55 from high-income countries. These studies found several factors that appeared to influence the implementation of doctor-nurse substitution strategies. The following factors were based on findings that we assessed as moderate or high confidence.Patients in many studies knew little about nurses' roles and the difference between nurse-led and doctor-led care. They also had mixed views about the type of tasks that nurses should deliver. They preferred doctors when the tasks were more 'medical' but accepted nurses for preventive care and follow-ups. Doctors in most studies also preferred that nurses performed only 'non-medical' tasks. Nurses were comfortable with, and believed they were competent to deliver a wide range of tasks, but particularly emphasised tasks that were more health promotive/preventive in nature.Patients in most studies thought that nurses were more easily accessible than doctors. Doctors and nurses also saw nurse-doctor substitution and collaboration as a way of increasing people's access to care, and improving the quality and continuity of care.Nurses thought that close doctor-nurse relationships and doctor's trust in and acceptance of nurses was important for shaping their roles. But nurses working alone sometimes found it difficult to communicate with doctors.Nurses felt they had gained new skills when taking on new tasks. But nurses wanted more and better training. They thought this would increase their skills, job satisfaction and motivation, and would make them more independent.Nurses taking on doctors' tasks saw this as an opportunity to develop personally, to gain more respect and to improve the quality of care they could offer to patients. Better working conditions and financial incentives also motivated nurses to take on new tasks. Doctors valued collaborating with nurses when this reduced thei

Systematic mapping of existing tools to appraise methodological strengths and limitations of qualitative research : first stage in the development of the CAMELOT tool

Background Qualitative evidence synthesis is increasingly used alongside reviews of effectiveness to inform guidelines and other decisions. To support this use, the GRADE-CERQual approach was developed to assess and communicate the confidence we have in findings from reviews of qualitative research. One component of this approach requires an appraisal of the methodological limitations of studies contributing data to a review finding. Diverse critical appraisal tools for qualitative research are currently being used. However, it is unclear which tool is most appropriate for informing a GRADE-CERQual assessment of confidence. Methodology We searched for tools that were explicitly intended for critically appraising the methodological quality of qualitative research. We searched the reference lists of existing methodological reviews for critical appraisal tools, and also conducted a systematic search in June 2016 for tools published in health science and social science databases. Two reviewers screened identified titles and abstracts, and then screened the full text of potentially relevant articles. One reviewer extracted data from each article and a second reviewer checked the extraction. We used a best-fit framework synthesis approach to code checklist criteria from each identified tool and to organise these into themes. Results We identified 102 critical appraisal tools: 71 tools had previously been included in methodological reviews, and 31 tools were identified from our systematic search. Almost half of the tools were published after 2010. Few authors described how their tool was developed, or why a new tool was needed. After coding all criteria, we developed a framework that included 22 themes. None of the tools included all 22 themes. Some themes were included in up to 95 of the tools. Conclusion It is problematic that researchers continue to develop new tools without adequately examining the many tools that already exist. Furthermore, the plethora of tools, old and new, indicates a lack of consensus regarding the best tool to use, and an absence of empirical evidence about the most important criteria for assessing the methodological limitations of qualitative research, including in the context of use with GRADE-CERQual

A summary to communicate evidence from systematic reviews to the public improved understanding and accessibility of information: a randomized controlled trial.

AbstractObjectivesTo evaluate a new format of a summary, which presents research from synthesized evidence to patients and the public.Study Design and SettingWe conducted a randomized controlled trial in 143 members of the public from five countries (Canada, Norway, Spain, Argentina, and Italy). Participants received either a new summary format (a plain language summary [PLS]) or the current format used in Cochrane systematic reviews. The new PLS presents information about the condition and intervention, a narrative summary of results, and a table of results with absolute numbers for effects of the intervention and quality of the evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation.ResultsWith the new PLS, more participants understood the benefits and harms and quality of evidence (53% vs. 18%, P < 0.001); more answered each of the five questions correctly (P ≤ 0.001 for four questions); and they answered more questions correctly, median 3 (interquartile range [IQR]: 1–4) vs. 1 (IQR: 0–1), P < 0.001). Better understanding was independent of education level. More participants found information in the new PLS reliable, easy to find, easy to understand, and presented in a way that helped make decisions. Overall, participants preferred the new PLS.ConclusionThis new PLS format for patients and the public is a promising tool to translate evidence from synthesized research

The lay health worker-patient relationship in promoting pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) in COPD: What makes it work?

Lay health workers (LHWs) can improve access to services and adherence to treatment, as well as promoting self-care and prevention. Their effect in promoting uptake and adherence in pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has not been tested. PR is the most effective treatment for the symptoms and disability of COPD, but this effectiveness is undermined by poor rates of completion. Trained LHWs with COPD, who also have first-hand experience of PR, are well placed to help overcome the documented barriers to its completion. The relationship between LHWs and patients may be one of the keys to their effectiveness but it has been little explored. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were used with the aim of examining the LHW-patient partnership in a feasibility study of trained PR-experienced LHWs used to support COPD patients referred to PR. Twelve volunteers with COPD who completed LHW training supported 66 patients referred for PR. All 12 of these LHWs gave end-of-study interviews, 21 COPD patients supported by LHWs were also interviewed. Patients reported that the LHWs were keen to share their experiences of PR, and that this had a positive impact. The enthusiasm of the LHWs for PR was striking. The common bond between LHWs and patients of having COPD together with the LHWs positive, first-hand experience of PR were dominant and recurring themes in their relationship.This article presents independent research funded by the NIHR under its Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) Programme (Grant Reference Number PB-PG0214-30052). SL receives additional funding from the South African Medical Research Council. SJCT was supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) North Thames at Bart’s Health NHS Trust

Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES) for Guidelines: Paper 3 – Using qualitative evidence syntheses to develop implementation considerations and inform implementation processes

Background: This is the third in a series of three papers describing the use of qualitative evidence syntheses (QES) to inform the development of clinical and health systems guidelines. WHO has recognised the need to improve its guideline methodology to ensure that decision-making processes are transparent and evidence based, and that the resulting recommendations are relevant and applicable to end users. In addition to the standard data on effectiveness, WHO guidelines increasingly use evidence derived from QES to provide information on acceptability and feasibility and to develop important implementation considerations. Methods: WHO convened a group drawn from the technical teams involved in formulating recent (2010–2018) guidelines employing QES. Using a pragmatic and iterative approach that included feedback from WHO staff and other stakeholders, the group reflected on, discussed and identified key methods and research implications from designing QES and using the resulting findings in guideline development. As members of WHO guideline technical teams, our aim in this paper is to explore how we have used findings from QES to develop implementation considerations for these guidelines. Results: For each guideline, in addition to using systematic reviews of effectiveness, the technical teams used QES to gather evidence of the acceptability and feasibility of interventions and, in some cases, equity issues and the value people place on different outcomes. This evidence was synthesised using standardised processes. The teams then used the QES to identify implementation considerations combined with other sources of information and input from experts. Conclusions: QES were useful sources of information for implementation considerations. However, several issues for further development remain, including whether researchers should use existing health systems frameworks when developing implementation considerations; whether researchers should take confidence in the evidence into account when developing implementation considerations; whether qualitative evidence that reveals implementation challenges should lead guideline panels to make conditional recommendations or only point to implementation considerations; and whether guideline users find it helpful to have challenges pointed out to them or whether they also need solutions. Finally, we need to explore how QES findings can be incorporated into derivative products to aid implementation

Sources of Community Health Worker Motivation: A Qualitative Study in Morogoro Region, Tanzania.

There is a renewed interest in community health workers (CHWs) in Tanzania, but also a concern that low motivation of CHWs may decrease the benefits of investments in CHW programs. This study aimed to explore sources of CHW motivation to inform programs in Tanzania and similar contexts. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 20 CHWs in Morogoro Region, Tanzania. Interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed, and coded prior to translation and thematic analysis. The authors then conducted a literature review on CHW motivation and a framework that aligned with our findings was modified to guide the presentation of results. Sources of CHW motivation were identified at the individual, family, community, and organizational levels. At the individual level, CHWs are predisposed to volunteer work and apply knowledge gained to their own problems and those of their families and communities. Families and communities supplement other sources of motivation by providing moral, financial, and material support, including service fees, supplies, money for transportation, and help with farm work and CHW tasks. Resistance to CHW work exhibited by families and community members is limited. The organizational level (the government and its development partners) provides motivation in the form of stipends, potential employment, materials, training, and supervision, but inadequate remuneration and supplies discourage CHWs. Supervision can also be dis-incentivizing if perceived as a sign of poor performance. Tanzanian CHWs who work despite not receiving a salary have an intrinsic desire to volunteer, and their motivation often derives from support received from their families when other sources of motivation are insufficient. Policy-makers and program managers should consider the burden that a lack of remuneration imposes on the families of CHWs. In addition, CHWs' intrinsic desire to volunteer does not preclude a desire for external rewards. Rather, adequate and formal financial incentives and in-kind alternatives would allow already-motivated CHWs to increase their commitment to their work

Selecting and implementing overview methods: implications from five exemplar overviews

This is the final version of the article. Available from BioMed Central via the DOI in this record.Background Overviews of systematic reviews are an increasingly popular method of evidence synthesis; there is a lack of clear guidance for completing overviews and a number of methodological challenges. At the UK Cochrane Symposium 2016, methodological challenges of five overviews were explored. Using data from these five overviews, practical implications to support methodological decision making of authors writing protocols for future overviews are proposed. Methods Methods, and their justification, from the five exemplar overviews were tabulated and compared with areas of debate identified within current literature. Key methodological challenges and implications for development of overview protocols were generated and synthesised into a list, discussed and refined until there was consensus. Results Methodological features of three Cochrane overviews, one overview of diagnostic test accuracy and one mixed methods overview have been summarised. Methods of selection of reviews and data extraction were similar. Either the AMSTAR or ROBIS tool was used to assess quality of included reviews. The GRADE approach was most commonly used to assess quality of evidence within the reviews. Eight key methodological challenges were identified from the exemplar overviews. There was good agreement between our findings and emerging areas of debate within a recent published synthesis. Implications for development of protocols for future overviews were identified. Conclusions Overviews are a relatively new methodological innovation, and there are currently substantial variations in the methodological approaches used within different overviews. There are considerable methodological challenges for which optimal solutions are not necessarily yet known. Lessons learnt from five exemplar overviews highlight a number of methodological decisions which may be beneficial to consider during the development of an overview protocol.The overview conducted by Pollock [19] was supported by a project grant from the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government. The overview conducted by McClurg [21] was supported by a project grant by the Physiotherapy Research Foundation. The overview by Hunt [22] was supported as part of doctoral programme funding by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care South West Peninsula (PenCLAHRC). The overview conducted by Estcourt [20] was supported by an NIHR Cochrane Programme Grant for the Safe and Appropriate Use of Blood Components. The overview conducted by Brunton [23] was commissioned by the Department of Health as part of an ongoing programme of work on health policy research synthesis. Alex Pollock is employed by the Nursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions (NMAHP) Research Unit, which is supported by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government. Pauline Campbell is supported by the Chief Nurses Office of the Scottish Government