Search

BackgroundPostpartum haemorrhage (PPH) is the leading cause of global maternal deaths, accounting for 30-50% of maternal deaths in sub-Saharan Africa. Most PPH-related deaths are preventable with timely detection and initiation of care, which may be facilitated by using a clinical care bundle. We explore influences on current PPH detection and management and on the future implementation of a new PPH bundle (E-MOTIVE) in low-resource, high-burden settings.MethodsSemi-structured qualitative interviews based on the Theoretical Domains Framework were conducted with 45 healthcare providers across nine hospitals in Nigeria, Kenya and South Africa, to identify barriers and enablers to current PPH detection and management and future implementation of a new PPH care bundle. Data were analysed using thematic and framework analysis. The Behaviour Change Wheel was used to identify potential interventions to address identified barriers and enablers.ResultsInfluences on current PPH detection and management fell under 12 domains: Environmental Context and Resources (drug and staff shortages), Skills (limited in-service training), Knowledge (variable understanding of the recommended practice), Behaviour Regulation (limited quality improvement culture), Beliefs about Consequences (drawbacks from inaccurate detection), Emotion (stress from the unpredictability of PPH), Social Influence (teamwork), Memory, Attention and Decision-making (limited guideline use), Social/Professional Role and Identity (role clarity), Beliefs about Capabilities (confidence in managing PPH), Reinforcement (disciplinary procedures) and Goals (PPH as a priority). Influences on bundle uptake included: Beliefs about Consequences (perceived benefits of new blood loss measurement tool), Environmental Context and Resources (high cost of drugs and new tools), Memory, Attention and Decision-making (concerns about whether bundle fits current practice), Knowledge (not understanding 'bundled' approach), Social Influence (acceptance by women and staff) and Intention (limited acceptance of 'bundled' approach over existing practice). These influences were consistent across countries. Proposed interventions included: Education, Training, Modelling (core and new skills), Enablement (monitoring uptake), Persuasion (leadership role) and Environmental Restructuring (PPH emergency trolley/kit).ConclusionsA wide range of individual, socio-cultural and environmental barriers and enablers to improving PPH detection and management exist in these settings. We identified a range of interventions that could improve PPH care and the implementation of new care bundles in this context.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov : NCT04341662.

Abstract Background Guidelines aim to support evidence-informed practice but are inconsistently used without implementation strategies. Our prior scoping review revealed that guideline implementation interventions were not selected and tailored based on processes known to enhance guideline uptake and impact. The purpose of this study was to update the prior scoping review. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL, Scopus, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for studies published from 2014 to January 2021 that evaluated guideline implementation interventions. We screened studies in triplicate and extracted data in duplicate. We reported study and intervention characteristics and studies that achieved impact with summary statistics. Results We included 118 studies that implemented guidelines on 16 clinical topics. With regard to implementation planning, 21% of studies referred to theories or frameworks, 50% pre-identified implementation barriers, and 36% engaged stakeholders in selecting or tailoring interventions. Studies that employed frameworks (n=25) most often used the theoretical domains framework (28%) or social cognitive theory (28%). Those that pre-identified barriers (n=59) most often consulted literature (60%). Those that engaged stakeholders (n=42) most often consulted healthcare professionals (79%). Common interventions included educating professionals about guidelines (44%) and information systems/technology (41%). Most studies employed multi-faceted interventions (75%). A total of 97 (82%) studies achieved impact (improvements in one or more reported outcomes) including 10 (40% of 25) studies that employed frameworks, 28 (47.45% of 59) studies that pre-identified barriers, 22 (52.38% of 42) studies that engaged stakeholders, and 21 (70% of 30) studies that employed single interventions. Conclusions Compared to our prior review, this review found that more studies used processes to select and tailor interventions, and a wider array of types of interventions across the Mazza taxonomy. Given that most studies achieved impact, this might reinforce the need for implementation planning. However, even studies that did not plan implementation achieved impact. Similarly, even single interventions achieved impact. Thus, a future systematic review based on this data is warranted to establish if the use of frameworks, barrier identification, stakeholder engagement, and multi-faceted interventions are associated with impact. Trial registration The protocol was registered with Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/4nxpr ) and published in JBI Evidence Synthesis.

The multi-disciplinarity of long-term care for people with intellectual disabilities makes organisations seek stability and predictability, complicating implementing innovations. Interventions to implement a method for reducing restrictive measures were analysed through the lens of Normalisation Process Theory to understand the social mechanisms at play. Process notes, collected during a trial in which a method to reduce restrictive measures was implemented, were analysed guided by implementation interventions defined by Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Review Group. These interventions were mapped to social mechanisms of Normalisation Process Theory. Implementation interventions were widely used in which clients' perspectives were expressed (client-related-interventions), and consensus processes were held with care professionals. These interventions initiated NPT's social mechanisms' Coherence, Cognitive Participation and Collective Action. The emphasis on consensus and clients' perspectives when methodically reducing restrictive measures reflects some unique implementation challenges in long-term intellectual disability care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Guidelines aim to support evidence-informed practice but are inconsistently used without implementation strategies. Our prior scoping review revealed that guideline implementation interventions were not selected and tailored based on processes known to enhance guideline uptake and impact. The purpose of this study was to update the prior scoping review.Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL, Scopus, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for studies published from 2014 to January 2021 that evaluated guideline implementation interventions. We screened studies in triplicate and extracted data in duplicate. We reported study and intervention characteristics and studies that achieved impact with summary statistics.Results: We included 118 studies that implemented guidelines on 16 clinical topics. With regard to implementation planning, 21% of studies referred to theories or frameworks, 50% pre-identified implementation barriers, and 36% engaged stakeholders in selecting or tailoring interventions. Studies that employed frameworks (n=25) most often used the theoretical domains framework (28%) or social cognitive theory (28%). Those that pre-identified barriers (n=59) most often consulted literature (60%). Those that engaged stakeholders (n=42) most often consulted healthcare professionals (79%). Common interventions included educating professionals about guidelines (44%) and information systems/technology (41%). Most studies employed multi-faceted interventions (75%). A total of 97 (82%) studies achieved impact (improvements in one or more reported outcomes) including 10 (40% of 25) studies that employed frameworks, 28 (47.45% of 59) studies that pre-identified barriers, 22 (52.38% of 42) studies that engaged stakeholders, and 21 (70% of 30) studies that employed single interventions.Conclusions: Compared to our prior review, this review found that more studies used processes to select and tailor interventions, and a wider array of types of interventions across the Mazza taxonomy. Given that most studies achieved impact, this might reinforce the need for implementation planning. However, even studies that did not plan implementation achieved impact. Similarly, even single interventions achieved impact. Thus, a future systematic review based on this data is warranted to establish if the use of frameworks, barrier identification, stakeholder engagement, and multi-faceted interventions are associated with impact.Trial Registration: The protocol was registered with Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/4nxpr ) and published in JBI Evidence Synthesis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background There is little information about the functions and behavior change techniques (BCTs) needed to implement shared decision making (SDM) in clinical practice. To guide future implementation initiatives, we sought to develop a BCT taxonomy for SDM implementation interventions. Methods This study is a secondary analysis of a 2018 Cochrane review on interventions for increasing the use of shared decision making by healthcare professionals. We examined all 87 studies included in the review. We extracted relevant information on each study intervention into a spreadsheet. Coders had undergone a training workshop on intervention functions and online training on BCT Taxonomy version 1 (BCTTv1). We performed functions and BCTs coding trials, and identified coding rules. We used Michie’s guide for designing behavior change interventions to code the functions and BCTs used in the interventions. Coders met to compare coding and discrepancies were discussed until consensus was reached. Data was analyzed using simple descriptive statistics. Results Overall, 7 functions, 24 combinations of functions and 32 BCTs were used in the 87 SDM implementation interventions. The mean of functions per intervention was 2.5 and the mean of BCTs per intervention was 3.7. The functions Coercion and Restriction were not found. The most common function was Education (73 studies). Three combinations of functions were most common (e.g: Education + Persuasion, used in 10 studies). The functions associated with more effective SDM implementation interventions were Modeling and Training. The most effective combination of functions was Education + Training + Modeling + Enablement. The most commonly used BCT was Instruction on how to perform the behavior (43 studies). BCTs associated with more effective SDM implementation interventions were: Instruction on how to perform the behavior, Demonstration of the behavior, Feedback on behavior, Pharmacological support, Material reward, and Biofeedback. Twenty-five BCTs were associated with less effective SDM implementation interventions. Four new BCTs were identified: General information to support the behavior, Tailoring, Exercises to conceptually prepare for the behavior, and Experience sharing and learning. Conclusions We established a BCT taxonomy specific to the field of SDM to guide future SDM implementation interventions. Four new BCTs should be added to BCTTv1.

Background: Health care professionals (HCPs) are able to make effective decisions regarding patient care through the use of systematically developed clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). These recommendations are especially important in a cancer health care context as patients are exposed to a multitude of interdisciplinary HCPs offering high-quality care throughout diagnosis, treatment, survivorship and palliative care. Although a large number of CPGs targeted towards cancer are widely disseminated, it is unknown whether implementation strategies targeting the use of these guidelines are effective in effecting HCP behaviour and patient outcomes in the cancer care context. The purpose of this systematic review will be to determine the effectiveness of different CPG dissemination and implementation interventions on HCPs' behaviour and patient outcomes in the cancer health care context. Methods/design: Five electronic databases (CINAHL, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE via Ovid, EMBASE via Ovid and PsycINFO via Ovid) will be searched to include all studies examining the dissemination and/or implementation of CPGs in a cancer care setting targeting all HCPs. CPG implementation strategies will be included if the CPGs were systematically developed (e.g. literature review/evidence-informed, expert panel, evidence appraisal). The studies will be limited to randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials and quasi-experimental (interrupted time series, controlled before-and-after designs) studies. Two independent reviewers will assess articles for eligibility, data extraction and quality appraisal. Discussion: The aim of this review is to inform cancer care health care professionals and policymakers about evidence-based implementation strategies that will allow for effective use of CPGs. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42015019331 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is little information about the functions and behavior change techniques (BCTs) needed to implement shared decision making (SDM) in clinical practice. To guide future implementation initiatives, we sought to develop a BCT taxonomy for SDM implementation interventions.Methods: This study is a secondary analysis of a 2018 Cochrane review on interventions for increasing the use of shared decision making by healthcare professionals. We examined all 87 studies included in the review. We extracted relevant information on each study intervention into a spreadsheet. Coders had undergone a training workshop on intervention functions and online training on BCT Taxonomy version 1 (BCTTv1). We performed functions and BCTs coding trials, and identified coding rules. We used Michie's guide for designing behavior change interventions to code the functions and BCTs used in the interventions. Coders met to compare coding and discrepancies were discussed until consensus was reached. Data was analyzed using simple descriptive statistics.Results: Overall, 7 functions, 24 combinations of functions and 32 BCTs were used in the 87 SDM implementation interventions. The mean of functions per intervention was 2.5 and the mean of BCTs per intervention was 3.7. The functions Coercion and Restriction were not found. The most common function was Education (73 studies). Three combinations of functions were most common (e.g: Education + Persuasion, used in 10 studies). The functions associated with more effective SDM implementation interventions were Modeling and Training. The most effective combination of functions was Education + Training + Modeling + Enablement. The most commonly used BCT was Instruction on how to perform the behavior (43 studies). BCTs associated with more effective SDM implementation interventions were: Instruction on how to perform the behavior, Demonstration of the behavior, Feedback on behavior, Pharmacological support, Material reward, and Biofeedback. Twenty-five BCTs were associated with less effective SDM implementation interventions. Four new BCTs were identified: General information to support the behavior, Tailoring, Exercises to conceptually prepare for the behavior, and Experience sharing and learning.Conclusions: We established a BCT taxonomy specific to the field of SDM to guide future SDM implementation interventions. Four new BCTs should be added to BCTTv1. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]