Clinical Practice Guidelines for Dementia in Australia: A step towards improving uptake of research findings in health and aged-care settings

This author accepted manuscript (post print) is made available following a 12 month embargo form date of publication (21 April 2016) in accordance with the publisher copyright policy

Is primary care ready to take on Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder?

BACKGROUND: Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a common childhood psychiatric disorder. The management of ADHD has recently been highlighted. The National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) and Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines network (SIGN) have both produced management guidelines. Doctors working within Primary Care in countries such as the United States play an important role in the management of ADHD. In the United Kingdom however the role of doctors in primary care in the management of ADHD, both individually and within shared care protocols, is only now being identified and defined. Is this role for Primary Care likely to be acceptable and effective? DISCUSSION: There is some evidence that doctors working within Primary Care in the United Kingdom are willing to follow up children on medication for ADHD and carry out monitoring of physical status. However many feel unconfident in the management of ADHD and most have received little or no training in child psychiatry. There are also concerns that adverse media reports will have an undue influence on the attitudes of doctors within primary care to families with children suffering from ADHD. SUMMARY: There are important barriers to be tackled before shared care protocols for ADHD can be successfully implemented in the United Kingdom. Tailored information about ADHD needs to be provided to doctors in primary care. Clear dialogue between planners and healthcare professionals from both primary and secondary care is essential to ensure that service delivery is acceptable to healthcare providers, tailored to their skills and is adequately resourced

Demographics of infertility and management of unexplained infertility

Peer reviewedPostprin

Exploring the uncertainties of early detection results: model-based interpretation of mayo lung project

Background: The Mayo Lung Project (MLP), a randomized controlled clinical trial of lung cancer screening conducted between 1971 and 1986 among male smokers aged 45 or above, demonstrated an increase in lung cancer survival since the time of diagnosis, but no reduction in lung cancer mortality. Whether this result necessarily indicates a lack of mortality benefit for screening remains controversial. A number of hypotheses have been proposed to explain the observed outcome, including over-diagnosis, screening sensitivity, and population heterogeneity (initial difference in lung cancer risks between the two trial arms). This study is intended to provide model-based testing for some of these important arguments.Method: Using a micro-simulation model, the MISCAN-lung model, we explore the possible influence of screening sensitivity, systematic error, over-diagnosis and population heterogeneity.Results: Calibrating screening sensitivity, systematic error, or over-diagnosis does not noticeably improve the fit of the model, whereas calibrating population heterogeneity helps the model predict lung cancer incidence better.Conclusions: Our conclusion is that the hypothesized imperfection in screening sensitivity, systematic error, and over-diagnosis do not in themselves explain the observed trial results. Model fit improvement achieved by accounting for population heterogeneity suggests a higher risk of cancer incidence in the intervention group as compared with the control group

The effect of provider- and workflow-focused strategies for guideline implementation on provider acceptance

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The effective implementation of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) depends critically on the extent to which the strategies that are deployed for implementing the guidelines promote provider acceptance of CPGs. Such implementation strategies can be classified into two types based on whether they primarily target providers (<it>e.g.</it>, academic detailing, grand rounds presentations) or the work context (<it>e.g.</it>, computer reminders, modifications to forms). This study investigated the independent and joint effects of these two types of implementation strategies on provider acceptance of CPGs.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Surveys were mailed to a national sample of providers (primary care physicians, physician assistants, nurses, and nurse practitioners) and quality managers selected from Veterans Affairs Medical Centers (VAMCs). A total of 2,438 providers and 242 quality managers from 123 VAMCs participated. Survey items measured implementation strategies and provider acceptance (<it>e.g.</it>, guideline-related knowledge, attitudes, and adherence) for three sets of CPGs--chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic heart failure, and major depressive disorder. The relationships between implementation strategy types and provider acceptance were tested using multi-level analytic models.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>For all three CPGs, provider acceptance increased with the number of implementation strategies of either type. Moreover, the number of workflow-focused strategies compensated (contributing more strongly to provider acceptance) when few provider-focused strategies were used.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Provider acceptance of CPGs depends on the type of implementation strategies used. Implementation effectiveness can be improved by using both workflow-focused as well as provider-focused strategies.</p

Training family physicians and residents in family medicine in shared decision making to improve clinical decisions regarding the use of antibiotics for acute respiratory infections: protocol for a clustered randomized controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>To explore ways to reduce the overuse of antibiotics for acute respiratory infections (ARIs), we conducted a pilot clustered randomized controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate DECISION+, a training program in shared decision making (SDM) for family physicians (FPs). This pilot project demonstrated the feasibility of conducting a large clustered RCT and showed that DECISION+ reduced the proportion of patients who decided to use antibiotics immediately after consulting their physician. Consequently, the objective of this study is to evaluate, in patients consulting for ARIs, if exposure of physicians to a modified version of DECISION+, DECISION+2, would reduce the proportion of patients who decide to use antibiotics immediately after consulting their physician.</p> <p>Methods/design</p> <p>The study is a multi-center, two-arm, parallel clustered RCT. The 12 family practice teaching units (FPTUs) in the network of the Department of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine of Université Laval will be randomized to a DECISION+2 intervention group (experimental group) or to a no-intervention control group. These FPTUs will recruit patients consulting family physicians and residents in family medicine enrolled in the study. There will be two data collection periods: pre-intervention (baseline) including 175 patients with ARIs in each study arm, and post-intervention including 175 patients with ARIs in each study arm (total n = 700). The primary outcome will be the proportion of patients reporting a decision to use antibiotics immediately after consulting their physician. Secondary outcome measures include: 1) physicians and patients' decisional conflict; 2) the agreement between the parties' decisional conflict scores; and 3) perception of patients and physicians that SDM occurred. Also in patients, at 2 weeks follow-up, adherence to the decision, consultation for the same reason, decisional regret, and quality of life will be assessed. Finally, in both patients and physicians, intention to engage in SDM in future clinical encounters will be assessed. Intention-to-treat analyses will be applied and account for the nested design of the trial will be taken into consideration.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>DECISION+2 has the potential to reduce antibiotics use for ARIs by priming physicians and patients to share decisional process and empowering patients to make informed, value-based decisions.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov: <a href="NCT01116076">NCT01116076</a></p

Effectiveness of a stepped primary care smoking cessation intervention (ISTAPS study): design of a cluster randomised trial

Background: There is a considerable body of evidence on the effectiveness of specific interventions in individuals who wish to quit smoking. However, there are no large-scale studies testing the whole range of interventions currently recommended for helping people to give up smoking; specifically those interventions that include motivational interviews for individuals who are not interested in quitting smoking in the immediate to short term. Furthermore, many of the published studies were undertaken in specialized units or by a small group of motivated primary care centres. The objective of the study is to evaluate the effectiveness of a stepped smoking cessation intervention based on a trans-theoretical model of change, applied to an extensive group of Primary Care Centres (PCC). ethods/Design: Cluster randomised clinical trial. Unit of randomization: basic unit of care consisting of a family physician and a nurse, both of whom care for the same population (aprox. 2000 people). Intention to treat analysis. Study population: Smokers (n = 3024) aged 14 to 75 years consulting for any reason to PCC and who provided written informed consent to participate in the trial. Intervention: 6-month implementation of recommendations of a Clinical Practice Guideline which includes brief motivational interviews for smokers at the precontemplation - contemplation stage, brief intervention for smokers in preparation-action who do not want help, intensive intervention with pharmacotherapy for smokers in preparation-action who want help, and reinforcing intervention in the maintenance stage. Control group: usual care. Outcome measures: Self-reported abstinence confirmed by exhaled air carbon monoxide concentration of ≤ 10 parts per million. Points of assessment: end of intervention period and 1 and 2 years post-intervention; continuous abstinence rate for 1 year; change in smoking cessation stage; health status measured by SF-36. Discussion: The application of a stepped intervention based on the stages of a change model is possible under real and diverse clinical practice conditions, and improves the smoking cessation success rate in smokers, besides of their intention or not to give up smoking at baseline

Canadian guidelines for clinical practice: an analysis of their quality and relevance to the care of adults with comorbidity

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Clinical guidelines have been the subject of much criticism in primary care literature partly due to potential conflicts in their implementation among patients with multiple chronic conditions. We assessed the relevance of selected Canadian clinical guidelines on chronic diseases for patients with comorbidity and examined their quality.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We selected 16 chronic medical conditions according to their frequency of occurrence, complexity of treatment, and pertinence to primary care. Recent Canadian clinical guidelines (2004 - 2009) on these conditions, published in English or French, were retrieved. We assessed guideline relevance to the care of patients with comorbidity with a tool developed by Boyd and colleagues. Quality was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Regarding relevance, 56.2% of guidelines addressed treatment for patients with multiple chronic conditions and 18.8% addressed the issue for older patients. Fifteen guidelines (93.8%) included specific recommendations for patients with one concurrent condition; only three guidelines (18.8%) addressed specific recommendations for patients with two comorbid conditions and one for more than two concurrent comorbid conditions. Quality of the evaluated guidelines was good to very good in four out of the six domains measured using the AGREE instrument. The domains with lower mean scores were Stakeholder Involvement and Applicability.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The quality of the Canadian guidelines examined is generally good, yet their relevance for patients with two or more chronic conditions is very limited and there is room for improvement in this respect.</p