Process evaluation for complex interventions in primary care: understanding trials using the normalization process model

Background: the Normalization Process Model is a conceptual tool intended to assist in understanding the factors that affect implementation processes in clinical trials and other evaluations of complex interventions. It focuses on the ways that the implementation of complex interventions is shaped by problems of workability and integration.Method: in this paper the model is applied to two different complex trials: (i) the delivery of problem solving therapies for psychosocial distress, and (ii) the delivery of nurse-led clinics for heart failure treatment in primary care.Results: application of the model shows how process evaluations need to focus on more than the immediate contexts in which trial outcomes are generated. Problems relating to intervention workability and integration also need to be understood. The model may be used effectively to explain the implementation process in trials of complex interventions.Conclusion: the model invites evaluators to attend equally to considering how a complex intervention interacts with existing patterns of service organization, professional practice, and professional-patient interaction. The justification for this may be found in the abundance of reports of clinical effectiveness for interventions that have little hope of being implemented in real healthcare setting

An interdisciplinary guideline development process: the Clinic on Low-back pain in Interdisciplinary Practice (CLIP) low-back pain guidelines

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Evaluation of low-back pain guidelines using Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) criteria has shown weaknesses, particularly in stakeholder involvement and applicability of recommendations. The objectives of this project were to: 1) develop a primary care interdisciplinary clinical practice guideline aimed at preventing prolonged disability from low-back pain, using a community of practice approach, and 2) assess the participants' impressions with the process, and evaluate the relationship between participant characteristics and their participation.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Ten stakeholder representatives recruited 136 clinicians to participate in this community of practice. Clinicians were drawn from the following professions: physiotherapists (46%), occupational therapists (37%), and family physicians (17%). Using previously published guidelines, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses, a first draft of the guidelines was presented to the community of practice. Four communication tools were provided for discussion and exchanges with experts: a web-based discussion forum, an anonymous comment form, meetings, and a symposium. Participants were prompted for comments on interpretation, clarity, and applicability of the recommendations. Clinical management recommendations were revised following these exchanges. At the end of the project, a questionnaire was sent to the participants to assess satisfaction towards the guidelines and the development process.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Twelve clinical management recommendations on management of low-back pain and persistent disability were initially developed. These were discussed through 188 comments posted on the discussion forum and 103 commentary forms submitted. All recommendations were modified following input of the participants. A clinical algorithm summarizing the guidelines was also developed. A response rate of 75% was obtained for the satisfaction questionnaire. The majority of respondents appreciated the development process and agreed with the guideline content. Most participants thought recommendations improved between versions, and that participant comments contributed to this improvement. All stakeholders officially endorsed the guidelines.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The community of practice approach was a successful method to develop guidelines on low-back pain, with participants providing information to improve guideline recommendations. The information technology infrastructure that was developed remains for continuous interdisciplinary exchanges and updating of the guidelines.</p

Development of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs): comparing approaches

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>While the potential of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to support implementation of evidence has been demonstrated, it is not currently being achieved. CPGs are both poorly developed and ineffectively implemented. To improve clinical practice and health outcomes, both well-developed CPGs and effective methods of CPG implementation are needed. We sought to establish whether there is agreement on the fundamental characteristics of an evidence-based CPG development process and to explore whether the level of guidance provided in CPG development handbooks is sufficient for people using these handbooks to be able to apply it.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>CPG development handbooks were identified through a broad search of published and grey literature. Documents published in English produced by national or international organisations purporting to support development of evidence-based CPGs were included. A list of 14 key elements of a CPG development process was developed. Two authors read each handbook. For each handbook a judgement was made as to how it addressed each element; assigned as: 'mentioned and clear guidance provided', 'mentioned but limited practical detail provided ', or 'not mentioned'.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Six CPG development handbooks were included. These were produced by the Council of Europe, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in the UK, the New Zealand Guidelines Group, the Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network, and the World Health Organization (WHO).</p> <p>There was strong concordance between the handbooks on the key elements of an evidence-based CPG development process. All six of the handbooks require and provide guidance on establishment of a multidisciplinary guideline development group, involvement of consumers, identification of clinical questions or problems, systematic searches for and appraisal of research evidence, a process for drafting recommendations, consultation with others beyond the guideline development group, and ongoing review and updating of the CPG.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The key elements of an evidence-based CPG development process are addressed with strong concordance by existing CPG development handbooks. Further research is required to determine why these key elements are often not addressed by CPG developers.</p

Guidelines on Chemotherapy in Advanced Stage Gynecological Malignancies: An Evaluation of 224 Professional Societies and Organizations

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines are important for guiding practice, but it is unclear if they are commensurate with the available evidence. METHODS: We examined guidelines produced by cancer and gynecological societies and organizations and evaluated their coverage of and stance towards chemotherapy for advanced stage disease among 4 gynecological malignancies (breast, ovarian, cervical, endometrial cancer) where the evidence for the use of chemotherapy is very different (substantial and conclusive for breast and ovarian cancer, limited and suggesting no major benefit for cervical and endometrial cancer). Eligible societies and organizations were identified through systematic internet searches (last update June 2009). Pertinent websites were scrutinized for presence of clinical practice guidelines, and relative guidelines were analyzed. RESULTS: Among 224 identified eligible societies and organizations, 69 (31%) provided any sort of guidelines, while recommendations for chemotherapy on advanced stage gynecological malignancies were available in 20 of them. Only 14 had developed their own guideline, and only 5 had developed guidelines for all 4 malignancies. Use of levels of evidence and grades of recommendations, and aspects of the production, implementation, and timeliness of the guidelines did not differ significantly across malignancies. Guidelines on breast and ovarian cancer utilized significantly more randomized trials and meta-analyses. Guidelines differed across malignancies on their coverage of disease-free survival (p = 0.033), response rates (p = 0.024), symptoms relief (p = 0.005), quality of life (p = 0.001) and toxicity (p = 0.039), with breast and ovarian cancer guidelines typically covering more frequently these outcomes. All guidelines explicitly or implicitly endorsed the use of chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical practice guidelines are provided by the minority of professional societies and organizations. Available guidelines tend to recommend chemotherapy even for diseases where the effect of chemotherapy is controversial and recommendations are based on scant evidence

Multiple Chronic Conditions: Prevalence, Health Consequences, and Implications for Quality, Care Management, and Costs

Persons with multiple chronic conditions are a large and growing segment of the US population. However, little is known about how chronic conditions cluster, and the ramifications of having specific combinations of chronic conditions. Clinical guidelines and disease management programs focus on single conditions, and clinical research often excludes persons with multiple chronic conditions. Understanding how conditions in combination impact the burden of disease and the costs and quality of care received is critical to improving care for the 1 in 5 Americans with multiple chronic conditions. This Medline review of publications examining somatic chronic conditions co-occurring with 1 or more additional specific chronic illness between January 2000 and March 2007 summarizes the state of our understanding of the prevalence and health challenges of multiple chronic conditions and the implications for quality, care management, and costs

Team players against headache: multidisciplinary treatment of primary headaches and medication overuse headache

Multidisciplinary approaches are gaining acceptance in headache treatment. However, there is a lack of scientific data about the efficacy of various strategies and their combinations offered by physiotherapists, physicians, psychologists and headache nurses. Therefore, an international platform for more intense collaboration between these professions and between headache centers is needed. Our aims were to establish closer collaboration and an interchange of knowledge between headache care providers and different disciplines. A scientific session focusing on multidisciplinary headache management was organised at The European Headache and Migraine Trust International Congress (EHMTIC) 2010 in Nice. A summary of the contributions and the discussion is presented. It was concluded that effective multidisciplinary headache treatment can reduce headache frequency and burden of disease, as well as the risk for medication overuse headache. The significant value of physiotherapy, education in headache schools, and implementation of strategies of cognitive behavioural therapy was highlighted and the way paved for future studies and international collaboration

Cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for chronically ill patients with comorbid depressive disorder in the general hospital setting, a randomised controlled trial

Background. Depressive disorder is one of the most common disorders, and is highly prevalent in chronically ill patients. The presence of comorbid depression has a negative influence on quality of life, health care costs, self-care, morbidity, and mortality. Early diagnosis and well-organized treatment of depression has a positive influence on these aspects. Earlier research in the USA has reported good results with regard to the treatment of depression with a collaborative care approach and an antidepressant algorithm. In the UK 'Problem Solving Treatment' has proved to be feasible. However, in the general hospital setting this approach has not yet been evaluated. Methods/Design. CC: DIM (Collaborative Care: Depression Initiative in the Medical setting) is a two-armed randomised controlled trial with randomisation at patient level. The aim of the trial is to evaluate the treatment of depressive disorder in general hospitals in the Netherlands based on a collaborative care framework, including contracting, 'Problem Solving Treatment', antidepressant algorithm, and manual-guided self-help. 126 outpatients with diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or cardiovascular diseases will be randomised to either the intervention group or the control group. Patients will be included if they have been diagnosed with moderate to severe depression, based on the DSM-IV criteria in a two-step screening method. The intervention group will receive treatment based on the collaborative care approach; the control group will receive 'care as usual'. Baseline and follow-up measurements (after 3, 6, 9, and 12 months) will be performed by means of questionnaires. The primary outcome measure is severity of depressive symptoms, as measured with the PHQ-9. The secondary outcome measure is the cost-effectiveness of these treatments according to the TiC-P, the EuroQol and the SF-36. Discussion. Earlier research has indicated that depressive disorder is a chronic, mostly recurrent illness, which tends to cluster with physical comorbidity. Even though the treatment of depressive disorder based on the guidelines for depression is proven effective, these guidelines are often insufficiently adhered to. Collaborative care and 'Problem Solving Treatment' will be specifically tailored to patients with depressive disorders and evaluated in a general hospital setting in the Netherlands