Processes, contexts, and rationale for disinvestment: a protocol for a critical interpretive synthesis

Background: Practical solutions are needed to support the appropriate use of available health system resources as countries are continually pressured to ‘do more with less’ in health care. Increasingly, health systems and organizations are exploring the reassessment of possibly obsolete, inefficient, or ineffective health system resources and potentially redirecting funds to those that are more effective and efficient. Such processes are often referred to as ‘disinvestment’. Our objective is to gain further understanding about: 1) whether how and under what conditions health systems decide to pursue disinvestment; 2) how health systems have chosen to undertake disinvestment; and 3) how health systems have implemented their disinvestment approach. Methods/Design We will use a critical interpretive synthesis (CIS) approach, to develop a theoretical framework based on insights drawn from a range of relevant sources. We will conduct systematic searches of databases as well as purposive searches to identify literature to fill conceptual gaps that may emerge during our inductive process of synthesis and analysis. Two independent reviewers will assess search results for relevance and conceptually map included references. We will include all empirical and non-empirical articles that focus on disinvestment at a system level. We will then extract key findings from a purposive sample of articles using frameworks related to government agendas, policy development and implementation, and health system contextual factors and then synthesize and integrate the findings to develop a framework about our core areas of interest. Lastly, we will convene a stakeholder dialogue with Canadian and international policymakers and other stakeholders to solicit targeted feedback about the framework (e.g., by identifying any gaps in the literature that we may want to revisit before finalizing it) and deliberating about barriers for developing and implementing approaches to disinvestment, strategies to address these barriers and about next steps that could be taken by different constituencies. Discussion Disinvestment is an emerging field and there is a need for evidence to inform the prioritization, development, and implementation of strategies in different contexts. Our CIS and the framework developed through it will support the actions of those involved in the prioritization, development, and implementation of disinvestment initiatives. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42014013204 Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/2046-4053-3-143) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

Bayesian Hierarchical Models Combining Different Study Types and Adjusting for Covariate Imbalances: A Simulation Study to Assess Model Performance

BACKGROUND: Bayesian hierarchical models have been proposed to combine evidence from different types of study designs. However, when combining evidence from randomised and non-randomised controlled studies, imbalances in patient characteristics between study arms may bias the results. The objective of this study was to assess the performance of a proposed Bayesian approach to adjust for imbalances in patient level covariates when combining evidence from both types of study designs. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Simulation techniques, in which the truth is known, were used to generate sets of data for randomised and non-randomised studies. Covariate imbalances between study arms were introduced in the non-randomised studies. The performance of the Bayesian hierarchical model adjusted for imbalances was assessed in terms of bias. The data were also modelled using three other Bayesian approaches for synthesising evidence from randomised and non-randomised studies. The simulations considered six scenarios aimed at assessing the sensitivity of the results to changes in the impact of the imbalances and the relative number and size of studies of each type. For all six scenarios considered, the Bayesian hierarchical model adjusted for differences within studies gave results that were unbiased and closest to the true value compared to the other models. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Where informed health care decision making requires the synthesis of evidence from randomised and non-randomised study designs, the proposed hierarchical Bayesian method adjusted for differences in patient characteristics between study arms may facilitate the optimal use of all available evidence leading to unbiased results compared to unadjusted analyses

Community based intervention to optimize osteoporosis management: randomized controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Osteoporosis-related fractures are a significant public health concern. Interventions that increase detection and treatment of osteoporosis are underutilized. This pragmatic randomised study was done to evaluate the impact of a multifaceted community-based care program aimed at optimizing evidence-based management in patients at risk for osteoporosis and fractures.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This was a 12-month randomized trial performed in Ontario, Canada. Eligible patients were community-dwelling, aged ≥55 years, and identified to be at risk for osteoporosis-related fractures. Two hundred and one patients were allocated to the intervention group or to usual care. Components of the intervention were directed towards primary care physicians and patients and included facilitated bone mineral density testing, patient education and patient-specific recommendations for osteoporosis treatment. The primary outcome was the implementation of appropriate osteoporosis management.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>101 patients were allocated to intervention and 100 to control. Mean age of participants was 71.9 ± 7.2 years and 94% were women. Pharmacological treatment (alendronate, risedronate, or raloxifene) for osteoporosis was increased by 29% compared to usual care (56% [29/52] vs. 27% [16/60]; relative risk [RR] 2.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.29 to 3.40). More individuals in the intervention group were taking calcium (54% [54/101] vs. 20% [20/100]; RR 2.67, 95% CI 1.74 to 4.12) and vitamin D (33% [33/101] vs. 20% [20/100]; RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.65).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>A multi-faceted community-based intervention improved management of osteoporosis in high risk patients compared with usual care.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>This trial has been registered with clinicaltrials.gov (ID: NCT00465387)</p

A prospective, double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial comparing standard wound care with adjunctive hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) to standard wound care only for the treatment of chronic, non-healing ulcers of the lower limb in patients with diabetes mellitus: a study protocol

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>It has been suggested that the use of adjunctive hyperbaric oxygen therapy improves the healing of diabetic foot ulcers, and decreases the risk of lower extremity amputations. A limited number of studies have used a double blind approach to evaluate the efficacy of hyperbaric oxygen therapy in the treatment of diabetic ulcers. The primary aim of this study is to assess the efficacy of hyperbaric oxygen therapy plus standard wound care compared with standard wound care alone in preventing the need for major amputation in patients with diabetes mellitus and chronic ulcers of the lower limb.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>One hundred and eighteen (59 patients per arm) patients with non-healing diabetic ulcers of the lower limb, referred to the Judy Dan Research and Treatment Centre are being recruited if they are at least 18 years of age, have either Type 1 or 2 diabetes with a Wagner grading of foot lesions 2, 3 or 4 on lower limb not healing for at least 4 weeks. Patients receive hyperbaric oxygen therapy every day for 6 weeks during the treatment phase and are provided ongoing wound care and weekly assessments. Patients are required to return to the study centre every week for an additional 6 weeks of follow-up for wound evaluation and management. The primary outcome is freedom from having, or meeting the criteria for, a major amputation (below knee amputation, or metatarsal level) up to 12 weeks after randomization. The decision to amputate is made by a vascular surgeon. Other outcomes include wound healing, effectiveness, safety, healthcare resource utilization, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. The study will run for a total of about 3 years.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The results of this study will provide detailed information on the efficacy of hyperbaric oxygen therapy for the treatment of non-healing ulcers of the lower limb. This will be the first double-blind randomized controlled trial for this health technology which evaluates the efficacy of hyperbaric oxygen therapy in prevention of amputations in diabetic patients.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00621608">NCT00621608</a></p

Processes, contexts, and rationale for disinvestment: a protocol for a critical interpretive synthesis

Abstract Background Practical solutions are needed to support the appropriate use of available health system resources as countries are continually pressured to ‘do more with less’ in health care. Increasingly, health systems and organizations are exploring the reassessment of possibly obsolete, inefficient, or ineffective health system resources and potentially redirecting funds to those that are more effective and efficient. Such processes are often referred to as ‘disinvestment’. Our objective is to gain further understanding about: 1) whether how and under what conditions health systems decide to pursue disinvestment; 2) how health systems have chosen to undertake disinvestment; and 3) how health systems have implemented their disinvestment approach. Methods/Design We will use a critical interpretive synthesis (CIS) approach, to develop a theoretical framework based on insights drawn from a range of relevant sources. We will conduct systematic searches of databases as well as purposive searches to identify literature to fill conceptual gaps that may emerge during our inductive process of synthesis and analysis. Two independent reviewers will assess search results for relevance and conceptually map included references. We will include all empirical and non-empirical articles that focus on disinvestment at a system level. We will then extract key findings from a purposive sample of articles using frameworks related to government agendas, policy development and implementation, and health system contextual factors and then synthesize and integrate the findings to develop a framework about our core areas of interest. Lastly, we will convene a stakeholder dialogue with Canadian and international policymakers and other stakeholders to solicit targeted feedback about the framework (e.g., by identifying any gaps in the literature that we may want to revisit before finalizing it) and deliberating about barriers for developing and implementing approaches to disinvestment, strategies to address these barriers and about next steps that could be taken by different constituencies. Discussion Disinvestment is an emerging field and there is a need for evidence to inform the prioritization, development, and implementation of strategies in different contexts. Our CIS and the framework developed through it will support the actions of those involved in the prioritization, development, and implementation of disinvestment initiatives. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD4201401320