Tailored implementation for chronic diseases (TICD): A project protocol

Contains fulltext : 98393.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The assumption underlying tailoring is that implementation interventions are most helpful if these effectively address the most important determinants of practice for improvement in the targeted setting. The aim of the Tailored Implementation For Chronic Diseases (TICD) project is to develop valid and efficient methods of tailoring implementation interventions to determinants of practice for knowledge implementation in chronic illness care. METHODS: The TICD project has organized the planned empirical research in three work packages that follow the three main steps of tailoring: identification of determinants of healthcare practice, matching implementation interventions to identified determinants of practice, and applying and assessing the tailored implementation interventions. These three key steps of tailored implementation will be applied to targeted chronic conditions in five different healthcare systems: cardiovascular disease in the Netherlands, obesity in England, depression in Norway, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in Poland, and multimorbidity in Germany. The design and interpretation of empirical research will be informed by systematic reviews of previous research on tailoring implementation interventions. DISCUSSION: The TICD project will provide much needed evidence on the advantages and disadvantages of different methods of identifying important determinants of practice and selecting implementation strategies that take account of those. It will also provide five rigorous evaluations of tailored implementation interventions for five different chronic conditions

The James Lind Initiative: books, websites and databases to promote critical thinking about treatment claims, 2003 to 2018

Abstract Background The James Lind Initiative (JLI) was a work programme inaugurated by Iain Chalmers and Patricia Atkinson to press for better research for better health care. It ran between 2003 and 2018, when Iain Chalmers retired. During the 15 years of its existence, the JLI developed three strands of work in collaboration with the authors of this paper, and with others. Work themes The first work strand involved developing a process for use by patients, carers and clinicians to identify shared priorities for research – the James Lind Alliance. The second strand was a series of articles, meetings, prizes and other developments to raise awareness of the massive amounts of avoidable waste in research, and of ways of reducing it. The third strand involved using a variety of approaches to promote better public and professional understanding of the importance of research in clinical practice and public health. JLI work on the first two themes has been addressed in previously published reports. This paper summarises JLI involvement during the 15 years of its existence in giving talks, convening workshops, writing books, and creating websites and databases to promote critical thinking about treatment claims. Conclusion During its 15-year life, the James Lind Initiative worked collaboratively with others to create free teaching and learning resources to help children and adults learn how to recognise untrustworthy claims about the effects of treatments. These resources have been translated in more than twenty languages, but much more could be done to support their uptake and wider use

Key Concepts for making informed Choices

Teach people to think critically about claims and comparisons — they will make better decisions

Guidance for Evidence-Informed Policies about Health Systems: Assessing How Much Confidence to Place in the Research Evidence

In the third paper in a three-part series on health systems guidance, Simon Lewin and colleagues explore the challenge of assessing how much confidence to place in evidence on health systems interventions

Synthesis, grading, and presentation of evidence in guidelines: article 7 in Integrating and coordinating efforts in COPD guideline development. An official ATS/ERS workshop report

INTRODUCTION: Professional societies, like many other organizations around the world, have recognized 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 14 articles that were prepared to advise guideline developers in respiratory and other diseases on approaches for guideline development. This article focuses on synthesizing, rating, and presenting evidence in guidelines. METHODS: In this review we addressed the following questions. (1) What evidence should guideline panels use to inform their recommendations? (2) How should they rate the quality of the evidence they use? (3) How should they grade evidence regarding diagnostic tests? (4) What should they do when quality of evidence differs across outcomes? (5) How should they present the evidence in a guideline? We did not conduct systematic reviews ourselves. We relied on prior evaluations of electronic databases and systematic reviews suggesting that the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group (GRADE) approach includes the desired features of a system for grading quality of evidence, including provision of models for presenting evidence for guideline panels, and for the consumers of practice guidelines. This article describes the GRADE approach to grading the quality of evidence and presenting evidence. Available evidence, the practice of leading guideline developers, and workshop discussions provide the basis for our conclusions. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: GRADE rates the quality of evidence for each outcome across studies rather than for each study. In the GRADE approach randomized trials start as high-quality evidence and observational studies as low-quality evidence, but both can be rated down or up. Five factors may lead to rating down the quality of evidence: study limitations or risk of bias, inconsistency of results, indirectness of evidence, imprecision, and publication bias. Three factors may lead to rating up the quality of evidence from observational studies: large magnitude of effect, dose-response gradient, and situations in which all plausible confounders would decrease an apparent treatment effect, or would create a spurious effect when results suggest no effect. GRADE suggests use of evidence profiles that provide a comprehensive way to display the key evidence relevant to a clinical question. Guideline developers who follow this structure will find the transparency of their recommendations markedly enhanced