Applying psychological theory to evidence-based clinical practice : identifying factors predictive of managing upper respiratory tract infections without antibiotics

Background: Psychological models can be used to understand and predict behaviour in a wide range of settings. However, they have not been consistently applied to health professional behaviours, and the contribution of differing theories is not clear. The aim of this study was to explore the usefulness of a range of psychological theories to predict health professional behaviour relating to management of upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs) without antibiotics. Methods: Psychological measures were collected by postal questionnaire survey from a random sample of general practitioners (GPs) in Scotland. The outcome measures were clinical behaviour (using antibiotic prescription rates as a proxy indicator), behavioural simulation (scenario-based decisions to managing URTI with or without antibiotics) and behavioural intention (general intention to managing URTI without antibiotics). Explanatory variables were the constructs within the following theories: Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), Social Cognitive Theory (SCT), Common Sense Self-Regulation Model (CS-SRM), Operant Learning Theory (OLT), Implementation Intention (II), Stage Model (SM), and knowledge (a non-theoretical construct). For each outcome measure, multiple regression analysis was used to examine the predictive value of each theoretical model individually. Following this 'theory level' analysis, a 'cross theory' analysis was conducted to investigate the combined predictive value of all significant individual constructs across theories. Results: All theories were tested, but only significant results are presented. When predicting behaviour, at the theory level, OLT explained 6% of the variance and, in a cross theory analysis, OLT 'evidence of habitual behaviour' also explained 6%. When predicting behavioural simulation, at the theory level, the proportion of variance explained was: TPB, 31%; SCT, 26%; II, 6%; OLT, 24%. GPs who reported having already decided to change their management to try to avoid the use of antibiotics made significantly fewer scenario-based decisions to prescribe. In the cross theory analysis, perceived behavioural control (TPB), evidence of habitual behaviour (OLT), CS-SRM cause (chance/bad luck), and intention entered the equation, together explaining 36% of the variance. When predicting intention, at the theory level, the proportion of variance explained was: TPB, 30%; SCT, 29%; CS-SRM 27%; OLT, 43%. GPs who reported that they had already decided to change their management to try to avoid the use of antibiotics had a significantly higher intention to manage URTIs without prescribing antibiotics. In the cross theory analysis, OLT evidence of habitual behaviour, TPB attitudes, risk perception, CS-SRM control by doctor, TPB perceived behavioural control and CS-SRM control by treatment entered the equation, together explaining 49% of the variance in intention. Cnclusion: The study provides evidence that psychological models can be useful in understanding and predicting clinical behaviour. Taking a theory-based approach enables the reation of a replicable methodology for identifying factors that predict clinical behaviour. Hwever, a number of conceptual and methodological challenges remain

The question-behavior effect : genuine effect or spurious phenomenon? A systematic review of randomized controlled trials with meta-analyses

OBJECTIVE: Simply answering questions about a specific behavior may change that behavior. This is known as the mere-measurement or question-behavior effect (QBE). Our objective was to synthesize the evidence for the QBE on health-related behaviors. METHOD: Included studies were randomized controlled trials that tested the effect of questionnaires or interviews about health-related behaviors and/or related cognitions compared with a no-measurement control condition or another form of measurement. Subgroup analyses were conducted to identify potential moderators. RESULTS: 41 studies were included assessing a range of health behaviors. Meta-analyses showed a small overall QBE effect (SMD = 0.09; 95% CI [0.04, 0.13]; k = 33). Studies showed moderate heterogeneity, variable risk of bias, and evidence of publication bias. No dose-response relationships were found from studies comparing more with less intensive measurement conditions. There were no significant differences in QBE by behavior, but QBEs for dental flossing, physical activity, and screening attendance were significantly different from 0. Findings were not altered by whether behavior or cognitions were measured, attitudes were or were not measured, studies used questionnaires or interviews, or outcomes were objective or self-reported. CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence for the QBE on health-related behavior. However, risk of bias within studies and evidence of publication bias indicate that the observed small effect size may be overestimated, especially given that some studies included intervention techniques in addition to providing questionnaires. Preregistered high-quality trials with clear specification of intervention content are needed to confirm if and when measurement leads to behavior change

Do incentives, reminders or reduced burden improve healthcare professional response rates in postal questionnaires?:Two randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND: Healthcare professional response rates to postal questionnaires are declining and this may threaten the validity and generalisability of their findings. Methods to improve response rates do incur costs (resources) and increase the cost of research projects. The aim of these randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was to assess whether 1) incentives, 2) type of reminder and/or 3) reduced response burden improve response rates; and to assess the cost implications of such additional effective interventions. METHODS: Two RCTs were conducted. In RCT A general dental practitioners (dentists) in Scotland were randomised to receive either an incentive; an abridged questionnaire or a full length questionnaire. In RCT B non-responders to a postal questionnaire sent to general medical practitioners (GPs) in the UK were firstly randomised to receive a second full length questionnaire as a reminder or a postcard reminder. Continued non-responders from RCT B were then randomised within their first randomisation to receive a third full length or an abridged questionnaire reminder. The cost-effectiveness of interventions that effectively increased response rates was assessed as a secondary outcome. RESULTS: There was no evidence that an incentive (52% versus 43%, Risk Difference (RD) -8.8 (95%CI −22.5, 4.8); or abridged questionnaire (46% versus 43%, RD −2.9 (95%CI −16.5, 10.7); statistically significantly improved dentist response rates compared to a full length questionnaire in RCT A. In RCT B there was no evidence that a full questionnaire reminder statistically significantly improved response rates compared to a postcard reminder (10.4% versus 7.3%, RD 3 (95%CI −0.1, 6.8). At a second reminder stage, GPs sent the abridged questionnaire responded more often (14.8% versus 7.2%, RD −7.7 (95%CI −12.8, -2.6). GPs who received a postcard reminder followed by an abridged questionnaire were most likely to respond (19.8% versus 6.3%, RD 8.1%, and 9.1% for full/postcard/full, three full or full/full/abridged questionnaire respectively). An abridged questionnaire containing fewer questions following a postcard reminder was the only cost-effective strategy for increasing the response rate (£15.99 per response). CONCLUSIONS: When expecting or facing a low response rate to postal questionnaires, researchers should carefully identify the most efficient way to boost their response rate. In these studies, an abridged questionnaire containing fewer questions following a postcard reminder was the only cost-effective strategy. An increase in response rates may be explained by a combination of the number and type of contacts. Increasing the sampling frame may be more cost-effective than interventions to prompt non-responders. However, this may not strengthen the validity and generalisability of the survey findings and affect the representativeness of the sample

Explaining variable effects of an adaptable implementation package to promote evidence-based practice in primary care : a longitudinal process evaluation

This study is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) [Programme Grants for Applied Research (Grant Reference Number RP-PG-1209-10040)] (https://www.nihr.ac.uk/).Background Implementing evidence-based recommendations is challenging in UK primary care, especially given system pressures and multiple guideline recommendations competing for attention. Implementation packages that can be adapted and hence applied to target multiple guideline recommendations could offer efficiencies for recommendations with common barriers to achievement. We developed and evaluated a package of evidence-based interventions (audit and feedback, educational outreach and reminders) incorporating behaviour change techniques to target common barriers, in two pragmatic trials for four “high impact” indicators: risky prescribing; diabetes control; blood pressure control; and anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation. We observed a significant, cost-effective reduction in risky prescribing but there was insufficient evidence of effect on the other outcomes. We explored the impact of the implementation package on both social processes (Normalisation Process Theory; NPT) and hypothesised determinants of behaviour (Theoretical Domains Framework; TDF). Methods We conducted a prospective multi-method process evaluation. Observational, administrative and interview data collection and analyses in eight primary care practices were guided by NPT and TDF. Survey data from trial and process evaluation practices explored fidelity. Results We observed three main patterns of variation in how practices responded to the implementation package. First, in integration and achievement, the package “worked” when it was considered distinctive and feasible. Timely feedback directed at specific behaviours enabled continuous goal setting, action and review, which reinforced motivation and collective action. Second, impacts on team-based determinants were limited, particularly when the complexity of clinical actions impeded progress. Third, there were delivery delays and unintended consequences. Delays in scheduling outreach further reduced ownership and time for improvement. Repeated stagnant or declining feedback that did not reflect effort undermined engagement. Conclusions Variable integration within practice routines and organisation of care, variable impacts on behavioural determinants, and delays in delivery and unintended consequences help explain the partial success of an adaptable package in primary care.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

Application of prescribing recommendations in older people with reduced kidney function : a cross-sectional study in general practice

BACKGROUND: Kidney function reduces with age, increasing the risk of harm from increased blood levels of many medicines. Although estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) is reported for prescribing decisions in those aged ≥65 years, creatinine clearance (Cockcroft-Gault) gives a more accurate estimate of kidney function. AIM: To explore the extent of prescribing outside recommendations for people aged ≥65 years with reduced kidney function in primary care and to assess the impact of using eGFR instead of creatinine clearance to calculate kidney function. DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional survey of anonymised prescribing data in people aged ≥65 years from all 80 general practices (70 900 patients) in a north of England former primary care trust. METHOD: The prevalence of prescribing outside recommendations was analysed for eight exemplar drugs. Data were collected for age, sex, actual weight, serum creatinine, and eGFR. Kidney function as creatinine clearance (Cockcroft-Gault) was calculated using actual body weight and estimated ideal body weight. RESULTS: Kidney function was too low for recommended prescribing in 4-40% of people aged ≥65 years, and in 24-80% of people aged ≥85 years despite more than 90% of patients having recent recorded kidney function results. Using eGFR overestimated kidney function for 3-28% of those aged ≥65 years, and for 13-58% of those aged ≥85 years. Increased age predicted higher odds of having a kidney function estimate too low for recommended prescribing of the study drugs. CONCLUSION: Prescribing recommendations when kidney function is reduced are not applied for many people aged ≥65 years in primary care. Using eGFR considerably overestimates kidney function for prescribing and, therefore, creatinine clearance (Cockcroft-Gault) should be assessed when prescribing for these people. Interventions are needed to aid prescribers when kidney function is reduced

An adaptable implementation package targeting evidence-based indicators in primary care: a pragmatic cluster-randomised evaluation

Background In primary care, multiple priorities and system pressures make closing the gap between evidence and practice challenging. Most implementation studies focus on single conditions, limiting generalisability. We compared an adaptable implementation package against an implementation control and assessed effects on adherence to four different evidence-based quality indicators. Methods and findings We undertook two parallel, pragmatic cluster-randomised trials using balanced incomplete block designs in general practices in West Yorkshire, England. We used ‘opt-out’ recruitment, and we randomly assigned practices that did not opt out to an implementation package targeting either diabetes control or risky prescribing (Trial 1); or blood pressure (BP) control or anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation (AF) (Trial 2). Within trials, each arm acted as the implementation control comparison for the other targeted indicator. For example, practices assigned to the diabetes control package acted as the comparison for practices assigned to the risky prescribing package. The implementation package embedded behaviour change techniques within audit and feedback, educational outreach, and computerised support, with content tailored to each indicator. Respective patient-level primary endpoints at 11 months comprised the following: achievement of all recommended levels of haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), BP, and cholesterol; risky prescribing levels; achievement of recommended BP; and anticoagulation prescribing. Between February and March 2015, we recruited 144 general practices collectively serving over 1 million patients. We stratified computer-generated randomisation by area, list size, and pre-intervention outcome achievement. In April 2015, we randomised 80 practices to Trial 1 (40 per arm) and 64 to Trial 2 (32 per arm). Practices and trial personnel were not blind to allocation. Two practices were lost to follow-up but provided some outcome data. We analysed the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, adjusted for potential confounders at patient level (sex, age) and practice level (list size, locality, pre-intervention achievement against primary outcomes, total quality scores, and levels of patient co-morbidity), and analysed cost-effectiveness. The implementation package reduced risky prescribing (odds ratio [OR] 0.82; 97.5% confidence interval [CI] 0.67–0.99, p = 0.017) with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £1,359 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), but there was insufficient evidence of effect on other primary endpoints (diabetes control OR 1.03, 97.5% CI 0.89–1.18, p = 0.693; BP control OR 1.05, 97.5% CI 0.96–1.16, p = 0.215; anticoagulation prescribing OR 0.90, 97.5% CI 0.75–1.09, p = 0.214). No statistically significant effects were observed in any secondary outcome except for reduced co-prescription of aspirin and clopidogrel without gastro-protection in patients aged 65 and over (adjusted OR 0.62; 97.5% CI 0.39–0.99; p = 0.021). Main study limitations concern our inability to make any inferences about the relative effects of individual intervention components, given the multifaceted nature of the implementation package, and that the composite endpoint for diabetes control may have been too challenging to achieve. Conclusions In this study, we observed that a multifaceted implementation package was clinically and cost-effective for targeting prescribing behaviours within the control of clinicians but not for more complex behaviours that also required patient engagement. Trial registration The study is registered with the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN91989345)

Variations in achievement of evidence-based, high-impact quality indicators in general practice: an observational study

Background: There are widely recognised variations in the delivery and outcomes of healthcare but an incomplete understanding of their causes. There is a growing interest in using routinely collected ‘big data’ in the evaluation of healthcare. We developed a set of evidence-based ‘high impact’ quality indicators (QIs) for primary care and examined variations in achievement of these indicators using routinely collected data in the United Kingdom (UK). Methods: Cross-sectional analysis of routinely collected, electronic primary care data from a sample of general practices in West Yorkshire, UK (n = 89). The QIs covered aspects of care (including processes and intermediate clinical outcomes) in relation to diabetes, hypertension, atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction, chronic kidney disease (CKD) and ‘risky’ prescribing combinations. Regression models explored the impact of practice and patient characteristics. Clustering within practice was accounted for by including a random intercept for practice. Results: Median practice achievement of the QIs ranged from 43.2% (diabetes control) to 72.2% (blood pressure control in CKD). Considerable between-practice variation existed for all indicators: the difference between the highest and lowest performing practices was 26.3 percentage points for risky prescribing and 100 percentage points for anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation. Odds ratios associated with the random effects for practices emphasised this; there was a greater than ten-fold difference in the likelihood of achieving the hypertension indicator between the lowest and highest performing practices. Patient characteristics, in particular age, gender and comorbidity, were consistently but modestly associated with indicator achievement. Statistically significant practice characteristics were identified less frequently in adjusted models. Conclusions: Despite various policy and improvement initiatives, there are enduring inappropriate variations in the delivery of evidence-based care. Much of this variation is not explained by routinely collected patient or practice variables, and is likely to be attributable to differences in clinical and organisational behaviour

Enhanced feedback interventions to promote evidence-based blood transfusion guidance and reduce unnecessary use of blood components:The AFFINITIE research programme including two cluster factorial RCTs

Background: Blood transfusion is a common but costly treatment. Repeated national audits in the UK suggest that up to one-fifth of transfusions are unnecessary when judged against recommendations for good clinical practice. Audit and feedback seeks to improve patient care and outcomes by comparing clinical care against explicit standards. It is widely used internationally in quality improvement. Audit and feedback generally has modest but variable effects on patient care. A considerable scope exists to improve the impact that audit and feedback has, particularly through head-to-head trials comparing different ways of delivering feedback. Objectives: The AFFINITIE (Development & Evaluation of Audit and Feedback INterventions to Increase evidence-based Transfusion practIcE) programme aimed to design and evaluate enhanced feedback interventions, within a national blood transfusion audit programme, to promote evidence-based guidance and reduce the unnecessary use of blood components. We developed, piloted and refined two feedback interventions, ‘enhanced content’ and ‘enhanced follow-on’ (workstream 1), evaluated the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the two feedback interventions compared with standard feedback practice (workstream 2), examined intervention fidelity and contextual influences (workstream 3) and developed general implementation recommendations and tools for other audit and feedback programmes (workstream 4). Design: Interviews, observations and documentary analysis in four purposively sampled hospitals explored contemporary practice and opportunities for strengthening feedback. We developed two interventions: ‘enhanced content’, to improve the clarity and utility of feedback reports, and ‘enhanced follow-on’, to help hospital staff with action-planning (workstream 1). We conducted two linked 2 × 2 factorial cross-sectional cluster-randomised trials within transfusion audits for major surgery and haematological oncology, respectively (workstream 2). We randomised hospital clusters (the organisational level at which hospital transfusion teams operate) to enhanced or standard content or enhanced or standard follow-on. Outcome assessment was masked to assignment. Decision-analytic modelling evaluated the costs, benefits and cost-effectiveness of the feedback interventions in both trials from the perspective of the NHS. A parallel process evaluation used semistructured interviews, documentary analyses and web analytics to assess the fidelity of delivery, receipt and enactment and to identify contextual influences (workstream 3). We explored ways of improving the impact of national audits with their representatives (workstream 4). Setting and participants: All NHS hospital trusts and health boards participating in the National Comparative Audit of Blood Transfusions were invited to take part. Among 189 hospital trusts and health boards screened, 152 hospital clusters participated in the surgical audit. Among 187 hospital trusts and health boards screened, 141 hospital clusters participated in the haematology audit. Interventions: ‘Enhanced content’ aimed to ensure that the content and format of feedback reports were consistent with behaviour change theory and evidence. ‘Enhanced follow-on’ comprised a web-based toolkit and telephone support to facilitate local dissemination, planning and response to feedback. Main outcome measures: Proportions of acceptable transfusions, based on existing evidence and guidance and algorithmically derived from national audit data. Data sources: Trial primary outcomes were derived from manually collected, patient-level audit data. Secondary outcomes included routinely collected data for blood transfusion. Results: With regard to the transfusions in the major surgery audit, 135 (89%) hospital clusters participated from 152 invited. We randomised 69 and 66 clusters to enhanced and standard content, respectively, and 68 and 67 clusters to enhanced and standard follow-on, respectively. We analysed a total of 2222 patient outcomes at 12 months in 54 and 58 (enhanced and standard content, respectively) and 54 and 58 (enhanced and standard follow-on, respectively) hospital clusters. With regard to the haematology audit, 134 hospital clusters (95%) participated from 141 invited. We randomised 66 and 68 clusters to enhanced and standard content, respectively, and 67 clusters to both enhanced and standard follow-on. We analysed a total of 3859 patient outcomes at 12 months in 61 and 61 (enhanced and standard content, respectively) and 63 and 59 (enhanced and standard follow-on) hospital clusters. We found no effect of either of the enhanced feedback interventions in either trial across all outcomes. Incremental enhanced intervention costs ranged from £18 to £248 per site. The enhanced feedback interventions were dominated by the standard intervention in cost-effectiveness analyses. The interventions were delivered as designed and intended, but subsequent local engagement was low. Although the enhancements were generally acceptable, doubts about the credibility of the blood transfusion audits undermined the case for change. Limitations: Limitations included the number of participating clusters; loss to follow-up of trial clusters, reducing statistical power and validity; incomplete audit and cost data contributing to outcome measures; participant self-selection; reporting; missing data related to additional staff activity generated in response to receiving feedback; and recall biases in the process evaluation interviews. Conclusions: The enhanced feedback interventions were acceptable to recipients but were more costly and no more effective than standard feedback in reducing unnecessary use of blood components, and, therefore, should not be recommended on economic grounds. Future work: We have demonstrated the feasibility of embedding ambitious large-scale rigorous research within national audit programmes. Further head-to-head comparisons of different feedback interventions are needed in these programmes to identify cost-effective ways of increasing the impact of the interventions