Search

BackgroundThe underuse or overuse of knowledge products leads to waste in health care, and primary care is no exception. ObjectiveThis study aimed to characterize which knowledge products are frequently implemented, the implementation strategies used in primary care, and the implementation outcomes that are measured. MethodsWe performed a systematic review (SR) of SRs using the Cochrane systematic approach to include eligible SRs. The inclusion criteria were any primary care contexts, health care professionals and patients, any Effective Practice and Organization of Care implementation strategies of specified knowledge products, any comparators, and any implementation outcomes based on the Proctor framework. We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Ovid PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases from their inception to October 2019 without any restrictions. We searched the references of the included SRs. Pairs of reviewers independently performed selection, data extraction, and methodological quality assessment by using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2. Data extraction was informed by the Effective Practice and Organization of Care taxonomy for implementation strategies and the Proctor framework for implementation outcomes. We performed a descriptive analysis and summarized the results by using a narrative synthesis. ResultsOf the 11,101 records identified, 81 (0.73%) SRs were included. Of these 81, a total of 47 (58%) SRs involved health care professionals alone. Moreover, 15 SRs had a high or moderate methodological quality. Most of them addressed 1 type of knowledge product (56/81, 69%), common clinical practice guidelines (26/56, 46%) or management, and behavioral or pharmacological health interventions (24/56, 43%). Mixed strategies were used for implementation (67/81, 83%), predominantly education-based (meetings in 60/81, 74%; materials distribution in 59/81, 73%; and academic detailing in 45/81, 56%), reminder (53/81, 36%), and audit and feedback (40/81, 49%) strategies. Education meetings (P=.13) and academic detailing (P=.11) seemed to be used more when the population was composed of health care professionals alone. Improvements in the adoption of knowledge products were the most commonly measured outcome (72/81, 89%). The evidence level was reported in 12% (10/81) of SRs on 62 outcomes (including 48 improvements in adoption), of which 16 (26%) outcomes were of moderate or high level. ConclusionsClinical practice guidelines and management and behavioral or pharmacological health interventions are the most commonly implemented knowledge products and are implemented through the mixed use of educational, reminder, and audit and feedback strategies. There is a need for a strong methodology for the SR of randomized controlled trials to explore their effectiveness and the entire cascade of implementation outcomes.

Abstract Background The literature on the implementation of knowledge products is extensive. However, this literature is still difficult to interpret for policymakers and other stakeholders when faced with choosing implementation strategies likely to bring about successful change in their health systems. This work has the particularity to examine the scope of this literature, and to clarify the effectiveness of implementation strategies for different knowledge products. Consequently, we aim to (1) determine the strengths and weaknesses of existing literature overviews; (2) produce a detailed portrait of the literature on implementation strategies for various knowledge products; and (3) assess the effectiveness of implementation strategies for each knowledge product identified and classify them. Methods We will use a three-phase approach consisting of a critical analysis of existing literature overviews, a systematic review of systematic reviews, and a series of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We will follow the Cochrane Methodology for each of the three phases. Our eligibility criteria are defined following a PICOS approach: Population, individuals or stakeholders participating in healthcare delivery, specifically, healthcare providers, caregivers, and end users; Intervention, any type of strategy aiming to implement a knowledge product including, but not limited to, a decision support tool, a clinical practice guideline, a policy brief, or a decision-making tool, a one-pager, or a health intervention; Comparison, any comparator will be considered; Outcomes, phases 1 and 2—any outcome related to implementation strategies including, but not limited to, the measures of adherence/fidelity to the use of knowledge products, their acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, adaptability, implementation costs, penetration/reach and sustainability; phase 3—any additional outcome related to patients (psychosocial, health behavioral, and clinical outcomes) or healthcare professionals (behavioral and performance outcomes); Setting, primary healthcare has to be covered. We will search MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, Web of Science, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library from their inception onwards. For each phase, two reviewers will independently perform the selection of studies, data extraction, and assess their methodological quality. We will analyze extracted data, and perform narrative syntheses, and meta-analyses when possible. Discussion Our results could inform not only the overviews’ methodology but also the development of an online platform for the implementation strategies of knowledge products. This platform could be useful for stakeholders in implementation science. Systematic review registration Protocol registered on Open Science Framework, https://osf.io/eb8w2/ .

Introduction Scaling science aims to help roll out evidence-based research results on a wide scale to benefit more individuals. Yet, little is known on how to evaluate economic aspects of scaling up strategies of evidence-based health interventions.Methods and analysis Using the Joanna Briggs Institute guidance on systematic reviews, we will conduct a systematic review of characteristics and methods applied in economic evaluations in scaling up strategies. To be eligible for inclusion, studies must include a scaling up strategy of an evidence-based health intervention delivered and received by any individual or organisation in any country and setting. They must report costs and cost-effectiveness outcomes. We will consider full or partial economic evaluations, modelling and methodological studies. We searched peer-reviewed publications in Medline, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library Database, PEDE, EconLIT, INHATA from their inception onwards. We will search grey literature from international organisations, bilateral agencies, non-governmental organisations, consultancy firms websites and region-specific databases. Two independent reviewers will screen the records against the eligibility criteria and extract data using a pretested extraction form. We will extract data on study characteristics, scaling up strategies, economic evaluation methods and their components. We will appraise the methodological quality of included studies using the BMJ Checklist. We will narratively summarise the studies’ descriptive characteristics, methodological strengths/weaknesses and the main drivers of cost-effectiveness outcomes. This study will help identify what are the trade-offs of scaling up evidence-based interventions to allocate resources efficiently.Ethics and dissemination No ethics approval is required as no primary data will be collected. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed, international journal and presented at national and international conferences.

Childhood obesity is one of the most serious public health challenges of the 21st century. The prevalence of overweight and obesity among children ( 2) and obesity (BMI for age > 3). Regression analyses were performed to investigate risk factors of overweight/obesity.The prevalence of overweight and obesity was 8% (1.7% for obesity alone). Boys were more affected by overweight than girls with a prevalence of 9.7% and 6.4% respectively. The highest prevalence of overweight was observed in the Grassfield area (including people living in West and North-West regions) (15.3%). Factors that were independently associated with overweight and obesity included: having overweight mother (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.51; 95% CI 1.15 to 1.97) and obese mother (aOR = 2.19; 95% CI = 155 to 3.07), compared to having normal weight mother; high birth weight (aOR = 1.69; 95% CI 1.24 to 2.28) compared to normal birth weight; male gender (aOR = 1.56; 95% CI 1.24 to 1.95); low birth rank (aOR = 1.35; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.72); being aged between 13-24 months (aOR = 1.81; 95% CI = 1.21 to 2.66) and 25-36 months (aOR = 2.79; 95% CI 1.93 to 4.13) compared to being aged 45 to 49 months; living in the grassfield area (aOR = 2.65; 95% CI = 1.87 to 3.79) compared to living in Forest area. Muslim appeared as a protective factor (aOR = 0.67; 95% CI 0.46 to 0.95).compared to Christian religion.This study underlines a high prevalence of early childhood overweight with significant disparities between ecological areas of Cameroon. Risk factors of overweight included high maternal BMI, high birth weight, male gender, low birth rank, aged between 13-36 months, and living in the Grassfield area while being Muslim appeared as a protective factor. Preventive strategies should be strengthened especially in Grassfield areas and should focus on sensitization campaigns to reduce overweight and obesity in mothers and on reinforcement of measures such as surveillance of weight gain during antenatal consultation and clinical follow-up of children with high birth weight. Meanwhile, further studies including nutritional characteristics are of great interest to understand the association with religion, child age and ecological area in this age group, and will help in refining preventive strategies against childhood overweight and obesity in Cameroon.