Search

Background: Elderly patients with depression are underdiagnosed, undertreated and run a high risk of a chronic course. General practitioners adhere to clinical practice guidelines to a limited degree. In the international research project Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases, we tested the effectiveness of tailored interventions to improve care for patients with chronic diseases. In Norway, we examined this approach to improve adherence to six guideline recommendations for elderly patients with depression targeting healthcare professionals, patients and administrators.Methods: We conducted a cluster randomised trial in 80 Norwegian municipalities. We identified determinants of practice for six recommendations and subsequently tailored interventions to address these determinants. The interventions targeted healthcare professionals, administrators and patients and consisted of outreach visits, a website presenting the recommendations and the underlying evidence, tools to manage depression in the elderly and other web-based resources, including a continuous medical education course for general practitioners. The primary outcome was mean adherence to the recommendations. Secondary outcomes were improvement in depression symptoms as measured by patients and general practitioners. We offered outreach visits to all general practitioners and practice staff in the intervention municipalities. We used electronic software that extracted eligible patients from the general practitioners' lists. We collected data by interviewing general practitioners or sending them a questionnaire about their practice for four patients on their list and by sending a questionnaire to the patients.Results: One hundred twenty-four of the 900 general practitioners (14 %) participated in the data collection, 51 in the intervention group and 73 in the control group. We interviewed 77 general practitioners, 47 general practitioners completed the questionnaire, and 134 patients responded to the questionnaire. Amongst the general practitioners who provided data, adherence to the recommendations was 1.6 percentage points higher in the intervention group than in the control group (95 % CI -6 to 9).Conclusions: The effectiveness of our tailored intervention to implement recommendations for elderly patients with depression in primary care is uncertain, due to the low response rate in the data collection. However, it is unlikely that the effect was large. It remains uncertain how best to improve adherence to evidence-based recommendations and thereby improve the quality of care for these patients.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01913236 . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To improve adherence to evidence-based recommendations, it is logical to identify determinants of practice and tailor interventions to address these. We have previously prioritised six recommendations to improve treatment of elderly patients with depression, and identified determinants of adherence to these recommendations. The aim of this article is to describe how we tailored interventions to address the determinants for the implementation of the recommendations. Methods: We drafted an intervention plan, based on the determinants we had identified in a previous study. We conducted six group interviews with representatives of health professionals (GPs and nurses), implementation researchers, quality improvement officers, professional and voluntary organisations and relatives of elderly patients with depression. We informed about the gap between evidence and practice for elderly patients with depression and presented the prioritised determinants that applied to each recommendation. Participants brainstormed individually and then in groups, suggesting interventions to address the determinants. We then presented evidence on the effectiveness of strategies for implementing depression guidelines. We asked the groups to prioritise the suggested interventions considering the perceived impact of determinants and of interventions, the research evidence underlying the interventions, feasibility and cost. We audiotaped and transcribed the interviews and applied a five step framework for our analysis. We created a logic model with links between the determinants, the interventions, and the targeted improvements in adherence. Results: Six groups with 29 individuals provided 379 suggestions for interventions. Most suggestions could be fit within the drafted plan, but the groups provided important amendments or additions. We sorted the interventions into six categories: resources for municipalities to develop a collaborative care plan, resources for health professionals, resources for patients and their relatives, outreach visits, educational and web-based tools. Some interventions addressed one determinant, while other interventions addressed several determinants. Conclusions: It was feasible and helpful to use group interviews and combine open and structured approaches to identify interventions that addressed prioritised determinants to adherence to the recommendations. This approach generated a large number of suggested interventions. We had to prioritise to tailor the interventions strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The tailoring of implementation interventions includes the identification of the determinants of, or barriers to, healthcare practice. Different methods for identifying determinants have been used in implementation projects, but which methods are most appropriate to use is unknown. Methods The study was undertaken in five European countries, recommendations for a different chronic condition being addressed in each country: Germany (polypharmacy in multimorbid patients); the Netherlands (cardiovascular risk management); Norway (depression in the elderly); Poland (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease-COPD); and the United Kingdom (UK) (obesity). Using samples of professionals and patients in each country, three methods were compared directly: brainstorming amongst health professionals, interviews of health professionals, and interviews of patients. The additional value of discussion structured through reference to a checklist of determinants in addition to brainstorming, and determinants identified by open questions in a questionnaire survey, were investigated separately. The questionnaire, which included closed questions derived from a checklist of determinants, was administered to samples of health professionals in each country. Determinants were classified according to whether it was likely that they would inform the design of an implementation intervention (defined as plausibly important determinants). Results A total of 601 determinants judged to be plausibly important were identified. An additional 609 determinants were judged to be unlikely to inform an implementation intervention, and were classified as not plausibly important. Brainstorming identified 194 of the plausibly important determinants, health professional interviews 152, patient interviews 63, and open questions 48. Structured group discussion identified 144 plausibly important determinants in addition to those already identified by brainstorming. Conclusions Systematic methods can lead to the identification of large numbers of determinants. Tailoring will usually include a process to decide, from all the determinants that are identified, those to be addressed by implementation interventions. There is no best buy of methods to identify determinants, and a combination should be used, depending on the topic and setting. Brainstorming is a simple, low cost method that could be relevant to many tailored implementation projects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: When designing interventions and policies to implement evidence based healthcare, tailoring strategies to the targeted individuals and organizations has been recommended. We aimed to gather insights into the ideas of a variety of people for implementing evidence-based practice for patients with chronic diseases, which were generated in five European countries. Methods: A qualitative study in five countries (Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, United Kingdom) was done, involving overall 115 individuals. A purposeful sample of four categories of stakeholders (healthcare professionals, quality improvement officers, healthcare purchasers and authorities, and health researchers) was involved in group interviews in each of the countries to generate items for improving healthcare in different chronic conditions per country: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cardiovascular disease, depression in elderly people, multi-morbidity, obesity. A disease-specific standardized list of determinants of practice in these conditions provided the starting point for these groups. The content of the suggested items was categorized in a pre-defined framework of 7 domains and specific themes in the items were identified within each domain. Results: The 115 individuals involved in the study generated 812 items, of which 586 addressed determinants of practice. These largely mapped onto three domains: individual health professional factors, patient factors, and professional interactions. Few items addressed guideline factors, incentives and resources, capacity of organizational change, or social, political and legal factors. The relative numbers of items in the different domains were largely similar across stakeholder categories within each of the countries. The analysis identified 29 specific themes in the suggested items across countries. Conclusion: The type of suggestions for improving healthcare practice was largely similar across different stakeholder groups, mainly addressing healthcare professionals, patient factors and professional interactions. As this study is one of the first of its kind, it is important that more research is done on tailored implementation strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background In the 'Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases (TICD)' project, five tailored implementation programs to improve healthcare delivery in different chronic conditions have been developed. These programs will be evaluated in distinct cluster-randomized controlled trials. This protocol describes the process evaluation across these trials, which aims to identify determinants of change in chronic illness care, to examine the validity of the tailoring methods that were applied, and to analyze the association of implementation activities and the effectiveness of the program. Methods A multilevel approach was used to develop five tailored implementation interventions. In order to guide the process evaluation in five distinct trials, the study protocols for the cluster randomized trials and the related process evaluations were developed simultaneously and iteratively. Results The process evaluation comprises three main components: a structured survey with health professionals in the trials, semi-structured interviews with a purposeful sample of this study population, and standardized documentation of organizational practice characteristics. Norway will only conduct the qualitative part of the analysis because the survey and documentation of practice characteristics are considered to be not feasible. The evaluation is guided by 'logic models' of the implementation programs: frameworks that specify the linkages between the strategies used, the determinants addressed by tailoring, and the anticipated outcomes. Standardization of measures across trials is sought to facilitate analysis of aggregated data from the trials. Conclusions This process evaluation will need to find a balance between standardization of methods across trials and the tailoring of measures to the specificities of each trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Medical research has led to major advances in recent decades. More resources have been invested in basic and clinical research than into the development and evaluation of methods to ensure that patients benefit of research findings. The purpose of implementation research is to reduce the gap between research and practice, by developing and evaluating measures to ensure that the treatment patients receive is evidence-based, caring and of high quality. In this article, we briefly explain implementation and implementation research. We illustrate the history of this young science, and the diversity of academic approaches and concepts used when trying to get research into practice. There are a number of theories about behavioural change, both at the individual and organisational level. The theories are, however, rarely tested empirically, especially when it comes to changing behaviour in the health services. Systematic reviews of methodologically rigorous studies are the best source of information about the effects of implementation interventions. The Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group (EPOC) is a major source of such reviews. The systematic reviews that have been produced in this area indicate that passive dissemination has limited impact, while more active interventions may have small to moderate effects. There is often considerable variation in the effects across studies. It is therefore important to gain better knowledge of the factors that may explain such effect-differences. We give examples of Norwegian implementation studies, and refer contributions from researchers at the Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services. Implementation research has the potential, if successful, to ensure that patients receive better health care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]