No more 'business as usual' with audit and feedback interventions: towards an agenda for a reinvigorated intervention

Background: Audit and feedback interventions in healthcare have been found to be effective, but there has been little progress with respect to understanding their mechanisms of action or identifying their key ‘active ingredients.’ Discussion: Given the increasing use of audit and feedback to improve quality of care, it is imperative to focus further research on understanding how and when it works best. In this paper, we argue that continuing the ‘business as usual’ approach to evaluating two-arm trials of audit and feedback interventions against usual care for common problems and settings is unlikely to contribute new generalizable findings. Future audit and feedback trials should incorporate evidence- and theory-based best practices, and address known gaps in the literature. Summary: We offer an agenda for high-priority research topics for implementation researchers that focuses on reviewing best practices for designing audit and feedback interventions to optimize effectiveness

Evaluation of a Theory-Informed Implementation Intervention for the Management of Acute Low Back Pain in General Medical Practice: The IMPLEMENT Cluster Randomised Trial

Introduction: This cluster randomised trial evaluated an intervention to decrease x-ray referrals and increase giving advice to stay active for people with acute low back pain (LBP) in general practice. Methods: General practices were randomised to either access to a guideline for acute LBP (control) or facilitated interactive workshops (intervention). We measured behavioural predictors (e.g. knowledge, attitudes and intentions) and fear avoidance beliefs. We were unable to recruit sufficient patients to measure our original primary outcomes so we introduced other outcomes measured at the general practitioner (GP) level: behavioural simulation (clinical decision about vignettes) and rates of x-ray and CT-scan (medical administrative data). All those not involved in the delivery of the intervention were blinded to allocation. Results: 47 practices (53 GPs) were randomised to the control and 45 practices (59 GPs) to the intervention. The number of GPs available for analysis at 12 months varied by outcome due to missing confounder information; a minimum of 38 GPs were available from the intervention group, and a minimum of 40 GPs from the control group. For the behavioural constructs, although effect estimates were small, the intervention group GPs had greater intention of practising consistent with the guideline for the clinical behaviour of x-ray referral. For behavioural simulation, intervention group GPs were more likely to adhere to guideline recommendations about x-ray (OR 1.76, 95%CI 1.01, 3.05) and more likely to give advice to stay active (OR 4.49, 95%CI 1.90 to 10.60). Imaging referral was not statistically significantly different between groups and the potential importance of effects was unclear; rate ratio 0.87 (95%CI 0.68, 1.10) for x-ray or CT-scan. Conclusions: The intervention led to small changes in GP intention to practice in a manner that is consistent with an evidence-based guideline, but it did not result in statistically significant changes in actual behaviour. Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN01260600009853

The Use of Multivitamin/Multimineral Supplements:A Modified Delphi Consensus Panel Report

PURPOSE: Evidence supporting the use of dietary supplements, in particular, multivitamin/multimineral supplements (MVMS), has been mixed, complicating the ability of health care professionals to recommend their use. To clarify the role that MVMS can play in supporting human health, a series of consensus statements was developed based on expert opinion. METHODS: A panel of 14 international experts in nutritional science and health care was convened to develop consensus statements related to using MVMS in supporting optimal human health. The modified Delphi process included 2 rounds of remote voting and a final round of voting at a roundtable meeting where evidence summaries were presented and discussed. The level of agreement with each of 9 statements was rated on a 5-point Likert scale: agree strongly; agree with reservation; undecided; disagree; or disagree strongly. Consensus was predefined as ≥80% of the panel agreeing strongly or agreeing with reservation to a given statement. FINDINGS: Consensus was reached for all statements. The panel determined that MVMS can broadly improve micronutrient intakes when they contain at least the micronutrients that are consumed insufficiently or have limited bioavailability within a specified population. MVMS formulations may also be individualized according to age, sex, life cycle, and/or other selected characteristics. There are specific biological processes and health outcomes associated with deficient, inadequate, and adequate micronutrient levels. Adequate intake is necessary for normal biological functioning required for good health; in some instances, higher than recommended micronutrient intakes have the potential to provide additional health benefits. Meeting daily intakes established by dietary reference values should be an explicit public health goal for individuals and populations. Use of MVMS is one approach to ensure that adequate micronutrient needs are met in support of biological functions necessary to maintain health. Long-term use of MVMS not exceeding the upper limit of recommended intakes has been determined to be safe in healthy adults. There is insufficient evidence to indicate that MVMS are effective for the primary prevention of chronic medical conditions, including cardiovascular disease and cancer. However, for certain otherwise healthy subpopulations (eg, pregnant women, older adults) and some individuals with existing medical conditions who experience inadequacies in micronutrient intake, addressing inadequacies by using MVMS can provide health benefits. IMPLICATIONS: This consensus panel has described key issues related to the use of MVMS among individuals at risk of or presenting with inadequacies in micronutrient intake or biomarker status

Expert range maps of global mammal distributions harmonised to three taxonomic authorities

AimComprehensive, global information on species' occurrences is an essential biodiversity variable and central to a range of applications in ecology, evolution, biogeography and conservation. Expert range maps often represent a species' only available distributional information and play an increasing role in conservation assessments and macroecology. We provide global range maps for the native ranges of all extant mammal species harmonised to the taxonomy of the Mammal Diversity Database (MDD) mobilised from two sources, the Handbook of the Mammals of the World (HMW) and the Illustrated Checklist of the Mammals of the World (CMW).LocationGlobal.TaxonAll extant mammal species.MethodsRange maps were digitally interpreted, georeferenced, error-checked and subsequently taxonomically aligned between the HMW (6253 species), the CMW (6431 species) and the MDD taxonomies (6362 species).ResultsRange maps can be evaluated and visualised in an online map browser at Map of Life (mol.org) and accessed for individual or batch download for non-commercial use.Main conclusionExpert maps of species' global distributions are limited in their spatial detail and temporal specificity, but form a useful basis for broad-scale characterizations and model-based integration with other data. We provide georeferenced range maps for the native ranges of all extant mammal species as shapefiles, with species-level metadata and source information packaged together in geodatabase format. Across the three taxonomic sources our maps entail, there are 1784 taxonomic name differences compared to the maps currently available on the IUCN Red List website. The expert maps provided here are harmonised to the MDD taxonomic authority and linked to a community of online tools that will enable transparent future updates and version control

Meditation or Medication? Mindfulness training versus medication in the treatment of childhood ADHD: a randomized controlled trial

Background Attention-Deficit-Hyperactivity-Disorder (ADHD) is, with a prevalence of 5 %, a highly common childhood disorder, and has severe impact on the lives of youngsters and their families. Medication is often the treatment of choice, as it currently is most effective. However, medication has only short-term effects, treatment adherence is often low and most importantly; medication has serious side effects. Therefore, there is a need for other interventions for youngsters with ADHD. Mindfulness training is emerging as a potentially effective training for children and adolescents with ADHD. The aim of this study is to compare the (cost) effectiveness of mindfulness training to the (cost) effectiveness of methylphenidate in children with ADHD on measures of attention and hyperactivity/impulsivity. Methods/design A multicenter randomized controlled trial with 2 follow-up measurements will be used to measure the effects of mindfulness training versus the effects of methylphenidate. Participants will be youngsters (aged 9 to 18) of both sexes diagnosed with ADHD, referred to urban and rural mental healthcare centers. We aim to include 120 families. The mindfulness training, using the MYmind protocol, will be conducted in small groups, and consists of 8 weekly 1.5-h sessions. Youngsters learn to focus and enhance their attention, awareness, and self-control by doing mindfulness exercises. Parents will follow a parallel mindful parenting training in which they learn to be fully present in the here and now with their child in a non-judgmental way, to take care of themselves, and to respond rather than react to difficult behavior of their child. Short-acting methylphenidate will be administered individually and monitored by a child psychiatrist. Assessments will take place at pre-test, post-test, and at follow-up 1 and 2 (respectively 4 and 10 months after the start of treatment). Informants are parents, children, teachers, and researchers. Discussion This study will inform mental health care professionals and health insurance companies about the clinical and cost effectiveness of mindfulness training for children and adolescents with ADHD and their parents compared to the effectiveness of methylphenidate. Limitations and several types of bias that are anticipated for this study are discussed

Burnout, employee engagement, and changing organizational contexts in VA primary care during the early COVID-19 pandemic

Abstract Background The COVID-19 pandemic involved a rapid change to the working conditions of all healthcare workers (HCW), including those in primary care. Organizational responses to the pandemic, including a shift to virtual care, changes in staffing, and reassignments to testing-related work, may have shifted more burden to these HCWs, increasing their burnout and turnover intent, despite their engagement to their organization. Our objectives were (1) to examine changes in burnout and intent to leave rates in VA primary care from 2017–2020 (before and during the pandemic), and (2) to analyze how individual protective factors and organizational context affected burnout and turnover intent among VA primary care HCWs during the early months of the pandemic. Methods We analyzed individual- and healthcare system-level data from 19,894 primary care HCWs in 139 healthcare systems in 2020. We modeled potential relationships between individual-level burnout and turnover intent as outcomes, and individual-level employee engagement, perceptions of workload, leadership, and workgroups. At healthcare system-level, we assessed prior-year levels of burnout and turnover intent, COVID-19 burden (number of tests and deaths), and the extent of virtual care use as potential determinants. We conducted multivariable analyses using logistic regression with standard errors clustered by healthcare system controlled for individual-level demographics and healthcare system complexity. Results In 2020, 37% of primary care HCWs reported burnout, and 31% reported turnover intent. Highly engaged employees were less burned out (OR = 0.57; 95% CI 0.52–0.63) and had lower turnover intent (OR = 0.62; 95% CI 0.57–0.68). Pre-pandemic healthcare system-level burnout was a major predictor of individual-level pandemic burnout (p = 0.014). Perceptions of reasonable workload, trustworthy leadership, and strong workgroups were also related to lower burnout and turnover intent (p < 0.05 for all). COVID-19 burden, virtual care use, and prior year turnover were not associated with either outcome. Conclusions Employee engagement was associated with a lower likelihood of primary care HCW burnout and turnover intent during the pandemic, suggesting it may have a protective effect during stressful times. COVID-19 burden and virtual care use were not related to either outcome. Future research should focus on understanding the relationship between engagement and burnout and improving well-being in primary care