Search

Background: Two to 4% of emergency hospital admissions are caused by preventable adverse drug events. The estimated costs of such avoidable admissions in England were £530 million in 2015. The data-driven quality improvement in primary care (DQIP) intervention was designed to prompt review of patients vulnerable from currently prescribed non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and anti-platelets and was found to be effective at reducing this prescribing. A process evaluation was conducted parallel to the trial, and this paper reports the analysis which aimed to explore response to the intervention delivered to clusters in relation to participants' perceptions about which intervention elements were active in changing their practice.Methods: Data generation was by in-depth interview with key staff exploring participant's perceptions of the intervention components. Analysis was iterative using the framework technique and drawing on normalisation process theory.Results: All the primary components of the intervention were perceived as active, but at different stages of implementation: financial incentives primarily supported recruitment; education motivated the GPs to initiate implementation; the informatics tool facilitated sustained implementation. Participants perceived the primary components as interdependent. Intervention subcomponents also varied in whether and when they were active. For example, run charts providing feedback of change in prescribing over time were ignored in the informatics tool, but were motivating in some practices in the regular e-mailed newsletter. The high-risk NSAID and anti-platelet prescribing targeted was accepted as important by all interviewees, and this shared understanding was a key wider context underlying intervention effectiveness.Conclusions: This was a novel use of process evaluation data which examined whether and how the individual intervention components were effective from the perspective of the professionals delivering changed care to patients. These findings are important for reproducibility and roll-out of the intervention.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01425502 . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Intentions play a central role in numerous empirically supported theories of behavior and behavior change and have been identified as a potentially important antecedent to successful evidence-based treatment (EBT) implementation. Despite this, few measures of mental health clinicians' EBT intentions exist and available measures have not been subject to thorough psychometric evaluation or testing. This paper evaluates the psychometric properties of the evidence-based treatment intentions (EBTI) scale, a new measure of mental health clinicians' intentions to adopt EBTs.Methods: The study evaluates the reliability and validity of inferences made with the EBTI using multi-method, multi-informant criterion variables collected over 12 months from a sample of 197 mental health clinicians delivering services in 13 mental health agencies. Structural, predictive, and discriminant validity evidence is assessed.Results: Findings support the EBTI's factor structure (χ (2) = 3.96, df = 5, p = .556) and internal consistency reliability (α = .80). Predictive validity evidence was provided by robust and significant associations between EBTI scores and clinicians' observer-reported attendance at a voluntary EBT workshop at a 1-month follow-up (OR = 1.92, p < .05), self-reported EBT adoption at a 12-month follow-up (R (2) = .17, p < .001), and self-reported use of EBTs with clients at a 12-month follow-up (R (2) = .25, p < .001). Discriminant validity evidence was provided by small associations with clinicians' concurrently measured psychological work climate perceptions of functionality (R (2) = .06, p < .05), engagement (R (2) = .06, p < .05), and stress (R (2) = .00, ns).Conclusions: The EBTI is a practical and theoretically grounded measure of mental health clinicians' EBT intentions. Scores on the EBTI provide a basis for valid inferences regarding mental health clinicians' intentions to adopt EBTs. Discussion focuses on research and practice applications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health system guidance (HSG) provides recommendations aimed to address health system challenges. However, there is a paucity of methods to direct, appraise, and report HSG. Earlier research identified 30 candidate criteria (concepts) that can be used to evaluate the quality of HSG and guide development and reporting requirements. The objective of this paper was to describe two studies aimed at evaluating the importance of these 30 criteria, design a draft HSG appraisal tool, and test its usability.Methods: This study involved a two-step survey process. In step 1, respondents rated the 30 concepts for appropriateness to, relevance to, and priority for health system decisions and HSG. This led to a draft tool. In step 2, respondents reviewed HSG documents, appraised them using the tool, and answered a series of questions. Descriptive analyses were computed.Results: Fifty participants were invited in step 1, and we had a response rate of 82 %. The mean response rates for each concept within each survey question were universally favorable. There was also an overall agreement about the need for a high-quality tool to systematically direct the development, appraisal, and reporting of HSG. Qualitative feedback and a consensus process by the team led to refinements to some of the concepts and the creation of a beta (draft) version of the HSG tool. In step 2, 35 participants were invited and we had a response rate of 74 %. Exploratory analyses showed that the quality of the HSGs reviewed varied as a function of the HSG item and the specific document assessed. A favorable consensus was reached with participants agreeing that the HSG items were easy to understand and easy to apply. Moreover, the overall agreement was high for the usability of the tool to systematically direct the development (85 %), appraisal (92 %), and reporting (81 %) of HSG. From this process, version 1.0 of the HSG appraisal tool was generated complete with 32 items (and their descriptions) and 4 domains.Conclusions: The final tool, named the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation for Health Systems (AGREE-HS) (version 1), defines expectations of HSG and facilitates informed decisions among policymakers on health system delivery, financial, and governance arrangements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]