Rhetoric, organizational category dynamics and institutional change : a study of the UK Welfare State

Accounts of institutional change and categorization conventionally assume that high-status change agents can impose change, even to stable category systems, which lower-status actors accommodate in order to ensure social approval and material resources. By exploring the UK Conservative-Liberal Coalition's rhetorical efforts to reform the welfare state, how welfare providers are categorized and the subsequent response of implicated category members, we offer instead an account of institutional change that exposes the agentic limitations of high-status actors. Whilst governments may well be in a position to impose changes in the formal rules of the game through manipulation of material resources (fiscal contraction, privatization, open markets, deregulation), we find that they cannot necessarily monopolize symbolic resources (identities/cultural features). We also find that deviation from cultural expectations is not only available to large, high-status organizations, low-status actors too have discretion over their responses to institutional pressures regarding how they are categorized and subsequently judged

Intelligent policy making? Key actors' perspectives on the development and implementation of a national early years' initiative

Increased political enthusiasm for evidence-based policy and action has re-ignited interest in the use of evidence within political and practitioner networks. Theories of evidence-based policy making and practice are being re-considered in an attempt to better understand the processes through which knowledge translation occurs. Understanding how policy develops, and practice results, has the potential to facilitate effective evidence use. Further knowledge of the factors which shape healthcare delivery and their influence in different contexts is needed.<p></p> This paper explores the processes involved in the development of a complex intervention in Scotland's National Health Service (NHS). It uses a national oral health programme for children (Childsmile) as a case study, drawing upon key actors' perceptions of the influence of different drivers (research evidence, practitioner knowledge and values, policy, and political and local context) to programme development. Framework analysis is used to analyse stakeholder accounts from in-depth interviews. Documentary review is also undertaken.<p></p> Findings suggest that Childsmile can be described as an ‘evidence-informed’ intervention, blending available research evidence with knowledge from practitioner experience and continual learning through evaluation, to plan delivery. The importance of context was underscored, in terms of the need to align with prevailing political ideology and in the facilitative strength of networks within the relatively small public health community in Scotland. Respondents' perceptions support several existing theoretical models of translation, however no single theory offered a comprehensive framework covering all aspects of the complex processes reported. Childsmile's use of best available evidence and on-going contribution to knowledge suggest that the programme is an example of intelligent policy making with international relevance.<p></p&gt

Reports of Perceived Adverse Events of Stimulant Medication on Cognition, Motivation, and Mood:Qualitative Investigation and the Generation of Items for the Medication and Cognition Rating Scale

Items were identified that capture potential/perceived cognitive, motivational, and mood-related adverse events of MPH. The items generated will allow us to further develop and psychometrically examine their prevalence, and the extent to which they are associated with medication adherence, treatment outcome, impairment, and other reported adverse events (e.g., loss of appetite/cardiovascular effects)

Can a theoretical framework help to embed alcohol screening and brief interventions in an endoscopy day-unit?

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: The National Institute for Health Care and Excellence recommend that alcohol screening and brief intervention (ASBI) should be routinely implemented in secondary care. This study used theoretical frameworks to understand how health professionals can be supported to adapt their behaviour and clinical practice. DESIGN AND METHODS: Staff training and support was conducted using theoretical frameworks. A 12-week study, delivering ASBI was carried out as part of routine practice in an endoscopy day-unit. Anonymised patient data were collected using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Tool (AUDIT) and whether patients received a brief intervention. Staff completed the Shortened Alcohol and Alcohol Problems Perceptions Questionnaire at three time points and took part in a focus group both pre and post study. RESULTS: For staff, levels or role adequacy, role legitimacy, motivation to discuss alcohol, security in their role, job satisfaction and commitment to working with patients who drink increased during the time of the study. 1598 individual patients were seen in the department in the timeframe. Of these, 1180 patients were approached (74%); 18% (n=207) of patients were AUDIT positive. DISCUSSION: This study has shown that it is possible to reach a high number of patients in a busy hospital out-patient department and deliver ASBI by working with staff using theoretical frameworks for training. Embedding evidence-based public health interventions into routine clinical environments is complex. The social system in which professionals operate requires consideration alongside individual professionals’ real and perceived barriers and facilitators to change

Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 7. Deciding what evidence to include

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO), like many other organisations around the world, has recognised the need to use more rigorous processes to ensure that health care recommendations are informed by the best available research evidence. This is the seventh of a series of 16 reviews that have been prepared as background for advice from the WHO Advisory Committee on Health Research to WHO on how to achieve this. OBJECTIVES: We reviewed the literature on what constitutes "evidence" in guidelines and recommendations. METHODS: We searched PubMed and three databases of methodological studies for existing systematic reviews and relevant methodological research. We did not conduct systematic reviews ourselves. Our conclusions are based on the available evidence, consideration of what WHO and other organisations are doing and logical arguments. KEY QUESTION AND ANSWERS: We found several systematic reviews that compared the findings of observational studies with randomised trials, a systematic review of methods for evaluating bias in non-randomised trials and several descriptive studies of methods used in systematic reviews of population interventions and harmful effects. What types of evidence should be used to address different types of questions? • The most important type of evidence for informing global recommendations is evidence of the effects of the options (interventions or actions) that are considered in a recommendation. This evidence is essential, but not sufficient for making recommendations about what to do. Other types of required evidence are largely context specific. • The study designs to be included in a review should be dictated by the interventions and outcomes being considered. A decision about how broad a range of study designs to consider should be made in relationship to the characteristics of the interventions being considered, what evidence is available, and the time and resources available. • There is uncertainty regarding what study designs to include for some specific types of questions, particularly for questions regarding population interventions, harmful effects and interventions where there is only limited human evidence. • Decisions about the range of study designs to include should be made explicitly. • Great caution should be taken to avoid confusing a lack of evidence with evidence of no effect, and to acknowledge uncertainty. • Expert opinion is not a type of study design and should not be used as evidence. The evidence (experience or observations) that is the basis of expert opinions should be identified and appraised in a systematic and transparent way

The structure of quality systems is important to the process and outcome, an empirical study of 386 hospital departments in Sweden

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Clinicians, nurses, and managers in hospitals are continuously confronted by new technologies and methods that require changes to working practice. Quality systems can help to manage change while maintaining a high quality of care. A new model of quality systems inspired by the works of Donabedian has three factors: structure (resources and administration), process (culture and professional co-operation), and outcome (competence development and goal achievement). The objectives of this study were to analyse whether structure, process, and outcome can be used to describe quality systems, to analyse whether these components are related, and to discuss implications.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A questionnaire was developed and sent to a random sample of 600 hospital departments in Sweden. The adjusted response rate was 75%. The data were analysed with confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling in LISREL. This is to our knowledge the first large quantitative study that applies Donabedian's model to quality systems.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The model with relationships between structure, process, and outcome was found to be a reasonable representation of quality systems at hospital departments (p = 0.095, indicating no significant differences between the model and the data set). Structure correlated strongly with process (0.72) and outcome (0.60). Given structure, process also correlated with outcome (0.20).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The model could be used to describe and evaluate single quality systems or to compare different quality systems. It could also be an aid to implement a systematic and evidence-based system for working with quality improvements in hospital departments.</p

Compliance with guidelines is related to better local recurrence-free survival in ductal carcinoma in situ

The aim was to study the effect of compliance with guidelines on local recurrence (LR)-free survival in patients treated for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). From January 1992 to December 2003, 251 consecutive patients had been treated for DCIS in two hospitals in the North Netherlands. Every case in this two-hospital sample was reviewed in retrospect for its clinical and pathological parameters. It was determined whether treatment had been carried out according to clinical guidelines, and outcomes in follow-up were assessed. In addition, all patients treated for DCIS in this region (n=1389) were studied regarding clinical parameters, in order to determine whether the two-hospital sample was representative of the entire region. In the two-hospital sample, 31.4% (n=79) of the patients had not been treated according to the guidelines. Positive margins were associated with LR (hazard ratio (HR)=4.790, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.696–13.531). Breast-conserving surgery and deviation from the guidelines were independent predictors of LR (HR=7.842, 95% CI 2.126–28.926; HR=2.778, 95% CI 0.982–6.781, respectively). Although the guidelines changed over time, time was not a significant factor in predicting LRs (HR=1.254, 95% CI 0.272–5.776 for time period 1992–1995 and HR=1.976, 95% CI 0.526–7.421 for time period 1996–1999). Clinical guidelines for the treatment of patients with DCIS have been developed and updated from existing literature and best evidence. Compliance with the guidelines was an independent predictor of disease-free survival. These findings support the application of guidelines in the treatment of DCIS

The European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of endometriosis: an electronic guideline implementability appraisal

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Clinical guidelines are intended to improve healthcare. However, even if guidelines are excellent, their implementation is not assured. In subfertility care, the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) guidelines have been inventoried, and their methodological quality has been assessed. To improve the impact of the ESHRE guidelines and to improve European subfertility care, it is important to optimise the implementability of guidelines. We therefore investigated the implementation barriers of the ESHRE guideline with the best methodological quality and evaluated the used instrument for usability and feasibility.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We reviewed the ESHRE guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of endometriosis to assess its implementability. We used an electronic version of the guideline implementability appraisal (eGLIA) instrument. This eGLIA tool consists of 31 questions grouped into 10 dimensions. Seven items address the guideline as a whole, and 24 items assess the individual recommendations in the guideline. The eGLIA instrument identifies factors that influence the implementability of the guideline recommendations. These factors can be divided into facilitators that promote implementation and barriers that oppose implementation. A panel of 10 experts from three European countries appraised all 36 recommendations of the guideline. They discussed discrepancies in a teleconference and completed a questionnaire to evaluate the ease of use and overall utility of the eGLIA instrument.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Two of the 36 guideline recommendations were straightforward to implement. Five recommendations were considered simply statements because they contained no actions. The remaining 29 recommendations were implementable with some adjustments. We found facilitators of the guideline implementability in the quality of decidability, presentation and formatting, apparent validity, and novelty or innovation of the recommendations. Vaguely defined actions, lack of facilities, immeasurable outcomes, and inflexibility within the recommendations formed barriers to implementation. The eGLIA instrument was generally useful and easy to use. However, assessment with the eGLIA instrument is very time-consuming.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The ESHRE guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of endometriosis could be improved to facilitate its implementation in daily practice. The eGLIA instrument is a helpful tool for identifying obstacles to implementation of a guideline. However, we recommend a concise version of this instrument.</p