Patient-mediated Interventions Research Articles

Professional medical education approaches: mobilizing evidence for clinicians.

Rapidly proliferating high-quality evidence supports daily decision-making in clinical practice. Continuing professional medical education links this evidence to practicing clinicians who are strongly motivated to improve the quality of their care by using the latest information. Approaches to professional education vary, and their effects depend on specific scenarios. This narrative review summarizes the main approaches for professional medical education that facilitate the mobilization of evidence for clinicians. It includes traditional learning (passive and active dissemination of educational materials, lectures, and mass media dissemination), constructivist learning (engaging in local consensus processes and education outreach visits, interfacing with local opinion leaders, conducting patient-mediated interventions, employing audit and feedback processes, and utilizing clinical decision-supporting systems), and blended learning approaches (the integration of in-person or online passive learning with active and creative learning by the learners). An optimized selection from these approaches is challenging but critical to clinicians and healthcare systems.

Estratégias para abordar a Judicialização da Saúde no Brasil: uma síntese de evidências

Abstract This article seeks to identify and discuss evidence-informed options to address the judicialization of health. The Supporting Policy Relevant Reviews and Trials Tools were used to define the problem and the search strategy, which was carried out in the following databases: PubMed, Health Systems Evidence, Campbell, Cochrane Collaboration, Rx for Change Database, and PDQ-Evidence. Selection and assessment of methodological quality was performed by two independent reviewers. The results were presented in a narrative synthesis. This study selected 19 systematic reviews that pointed out four strategies to address the judicialization of health in Brazil: 1) Rapid response service, 2) Continuous education program, 3) Mediation service between the parties involved, and 4) Adoption of a computer-based, online decision-making support tool and patient-mediated interventions. This study therefore presented and characterized four options that can be considered to address the judicialization of health. The implementation of these options must ensure the participation of different actors, reflecting on different contexts and the impact on the health system. The availability of human and financial resources and the training of teams are critical points for the successful implementation of the options.

Strategies to approach the judicialization of health in Brazil: an evidence brief

This article seeks to identify and discuss evidence-informed options to address the judicialization of health. The Supporting Policy Relevant Reviews and Trials Tools were used to define the problem and the search strategy, which was carried out in the following databases: PubMed, Health Systems Evidence, Campbell, Cochrane Collaboration, Rx for Change Database, and PDQ-Evidence. Selection and assessment of methodological quality was performed by two independent reviewers. The results were presented in a narrative synthesis. This study selected 19 systematic reviews that pointed out four strategies to address the judicialization of health in Brazil: 1) Rapid response service, 2) Continuous education program, 3) Mediation service between the parties involved, and 4) Adoption of a computer-based, online decision-making support tool and patient-mediated interventions. This study therefore presented and characterized four options that can be considered to address the judicialization of health. The implementation of these options must ensure the participation of different actors, reflecting on different contexts and the impact on the health system. The availability of human and financial resources and the training of teams are critical points for the successful implementation of the options.

Patient-mediated interventions in hospital: A systematic review.

To describe the characteristics of hospital-based, patient-mediated interventions and their impact on patient, clinician and organization outcomes. Systematic review. Health literature databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL and EMBASE) were searched in August 2021. Backward and forward citation searching was conducted. Studies investigating patient-mediated interventions, targeted at adult hospitalized patients were eligible. Data were extracted related to study and intervention characteristics. Narrative synthesis was used to understand intervention impact on patient, clinician and organization outcomes (as per a framework). Methodological quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Assessment Tool. Thirty-three studies, reporting 18 interventions, were included. Twelve interventions prompted patients to report health information about their own health/needs/concerns and six interventions encouraged patients to provide feedback about clinical practice. Across all interventions, there was evidence that patients used patient-mediated interventions and that they may improve patient communication. Healthcare professional outcomes were mixed for actual/intended use, acceptability and usefulness of interventions; yet there was some evidence of healthcare professional behaviour change. Interventions that encouraged patients to report health information about their own health/needs/concernsappeared more successful than other types of interventions. There is some evidence that hospital-based patient-mediated interventions may influence patient communication and healthcare professional behaviour. Patient-mediated interventions that encourage patients to report patient data before a clinical encounter may be more impactful than interventions that encourage patient feedback during or post-encounter. To date, most patient-mediated intervention research has been conducted in primary care settings; we uncovered the types of patient-mediated interventions that have been trialled in hospitals. We found that patient communication and healthcare professional behaviour may be influenced by these patient-mediated interventions. Future researchers could explore the suitability and effectiveness of a wider range of hospital-based patient-mediated interventions. There was no funding to remunerate a patient/member of the public for this review.

Effectiveness of interventions aiming to reduce inappropriate drug prescribing: an overview of interventions

Abstract Objective Inappropriate prescribing of drugs is associated with unnecessary harms for patients and healthcare costs. Interventions to reduce these prescriptions are widely studied, yet the effectiveness of different types of interventions remains unclear. Therefore, we provide an overview regarding the effectiveness of intervention types that aim to reduce inappropriate drug prescriptions, unrestricted by target drugs, population or setting. Methods For this overview, systematic reviews (SRs) were used as the source for original studies. EMBASE and MEDLINE were searched from inception to August 2018. All SRs aiming to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to reduce inappropriate prescribing of drugs were eligible for inclusion. The SRs and their original studies were screened for eligibility. Interventions of the original studies were categorized by type of intervention. The percentage of interventions showing a significant reduction of inappropriate prescribing were reported per intervention category. Key findings Thirty-two SRs were included, which provided 319 unique interventions. Overall, 61.4% of these interventions showed a significant reduction in inappropriate prescribing of drugs. Strategies that were most frequently effective in reducing inappropriate prescribing were multifaceted interventions (73.2%), followed by interventions containing additional diagnostic tests (antibiotics) (70.4%), computer interventions (69.2%), audit and feedback (66.7%), patient-mediated interventions (62.5%) and multidisciplinary (team) approach (57.1%). The least frequently effective intervention was an education for healthcare professionals (50.0%). Conclusion The majority of the interventions were effective in reducing inappropriate prescribing of drugs. Multifaceted interventions most frequently showed a significant reduction of inappropriate prescribing. Education for healthcare professionals is the most frequently included intervention in this overview, yet this category is least frequently effective.

Implementation of national childbirth guidelines in Brazil: barriers and strategies.

ABSTRACTThe present report describes the process and results obtained with a knowledge translation project developed in three stages to identify barriers to the Implementation of the National Guidelines for Normal Childbirth in Brazil, as well strategies for effective implementation. The Improving Programme Implementation through Embedded Research (iPIER) model and the Supporting Policy Relevant Reviews and Trials (SUPPORT) tools provided the methodological framework for the project. In the first stage, the quality of the Guidelines was evaluated and the barriers preventing implementation of the recommendations were identified through review of the global evidence and analysis of contributions obtained in a public consultation process. In the second stage, an evidence synthesis was used as the basis for a deliberative dialogue aimed at prioritizing the barriers identified. Finally, a second evidence synthesis was presented in a new deliberative dialogue to discuss six options to address the prioritized barriers: 1) promote the use of multifaceted interventions; 2) promote educational interventions for the adoption of guidelines; 3) perform audits and provide feedback to adjust professional practice; 4) use reminders to mediate the interaction between workers and service users; 5) enable patient-mediated interventions; and 6) engage opinion leaders to promote use of the Guidelines. The processes and results associated with each stage were documented and formulated to inform a review and update of the Guidelines and the development of an implementation plan for the recommendations. Effective implementation of the Guidelines is important for improving the care provided during labor and childbirth in Brazil.

Patient-mediated Interventions to Improve Professional Practice: A Cochrane review summary

The Cochrane review assessed whether patients can change the performance of healthcare professionals. A total of 25 studies were included in the review .The review's findings suggest that patients may change healthcare professionals' practice though the following three strategies: 1) strategies where patients give healthcare professionals information about themselves; 2) strategies where patients are given healthcare information; and 3) strategies where patients take part in patient education. Patient decision aids may make little or no difference to healthcare professionals' practice, however, the certainty is low, and these results should be interpreted carefully. Authors indicated the need for further research to identify the best ways in which patients can change professional practice and about the impact it has on patients' health.

Patient-mediated interventions to improve professional practice.

Patient-mediated interventions to improve professional practice.

Patient-mediated interventions to improve professional practice

Patient-mediated interventions to improve professional practice

What do stakeholders need to implement shared decision making in routine cancer care? A qualitative needs assessment

Background: Shared decision making (SDM) is particularly relevant in oncology, where complex treatment options with varying side effects may lead to meaningful changes in the patient’s quality of life. For several years, health policies have called for the implementation of SDM, but SDM remains poorly implemented in routine clinical practice. Implementation science has highlighted the importance of assessing stakeholders’ needs to inform the development of implementation programs. Thus, the aim of the present study was to assess different stakeholders’ needs regarding the implementation of SDM in routine care.Material and methods: A qualitative study using focus groups and interviews was conducted. Focus groups were carried out with junior physicians, senior physicians, nurses and other healthcare providers (HPCs) (e.g. psycho-oncologists, physiotherapists), patients and family members. Head physicians as well as other HPCs in management positions were interviewed. Audiotapes of focus groups and interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using content analysis.Results: Six focus groups with a total of n = 42 stakeholders as well as n = 17 interviews were conducted. Focus groups and interviews revealed five main categories of needs to be fulfilled in order to achieve a better implementation of SDM in routine cancer care: 1) changes in communication, 2) involvement of other parties, 3) a trustful patient–physician relationship, 4) culture change and 5) structural changes. Stakeholders discussed four clusters of intervention strategies that could foster the implementation of SDM in routine cancer care: 1) clinician-mediated interventions, 2) patient-mediated interventions, 3) provision of patient information material and 4) the establishment of a patient advocate.Conclusion: Study results show that stakeholders voiced a diversity of needs to foster implementation of SDM in routine cancer care, of which some can be directly addressed by intervention strategies. Present results can be used to develop an implementation program to foster SDM in routine cancer care.

Improving patient-centredness in partnership with female patients: a cluster RCT in fertility care.

What is the effect of a multifaceted intervention with participation of patients on improvement of patient-centredness in fertility care? A multifaceted intervention with participation of patients did not improve total patient-centredness scores provided by women in fertility care. We should provide care that takes into account the preferences and needs of patients, i.e. patient-centred care. Especially infertile patients who suffer from a high emotional burden of treatment could benefit from a more patient-centred approach in healthcare. However, the improvement of patient-centred care is still needed, because effective strategies to come to improvement are lacking. A cluster RCT was performed within 32 Dutch fertility clinics, covering about one-third of all Dutch hospitals. After randomization, 16 clinics in the intervention group were exposed to a multifaceted improvement strategy for patient-centred fertility care for 1 year. This strategy comprised audit and feedback, educational outreach visits and patient-mediated interventions. The remaining 16 clinics in the control group performed care as usual. The clinics' levels of patient-centredness were measured, using the validated Patient-centredness Questionnaire-Infertility (PCQ-Infertility). At baseline measurement, a total of 1620 women in couples undergoing fertility care (this included both male, female, mixed infertility and infertility of unknown cause) in one of the participating clinics were randomly selected to participate in the study and complete the questionnaire. For the after measurement, we randomly selected a comparable sample of 1565 women in infertile couples. Both women who had already started their treatment before the start of the study (67%) and women who started their treatment after the start of this study (33%) were included. To avoid bias, we only included the responses of non-pregnant respondents. The final analysis involved 30 clinics. A total of 946 women (response 58.4%) completed their questionnaire at baseline measurement and also a total of 946 women (response 60.4%) at after measurement. After excluding the pregnant patients, respectively 696 and 730 questionnaires were eligible for analysis at baseline and after measurement. The total score of case-mix adjusted PCQ-Infertility at after measurement did not differ significantly between the intervention and control group (B = 0.06; 95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.04-0.15; P = 0.25). However, scores on the continuity of care subscale were significantly higher in the intervention group compared with the control group (B = 0.20; 95% CI = 0.00-0.40; P < 0.05). The addition of three interaction terms to the model had a significant impact: (i) being younger than 36 years, (ii) beginning treatment after the study had started and (iii) using complementary and alternative medicine. If women met all three conditions, the scores in the intervention group were on average 0.31 points higher compared with the control group (95% CI = 0.14-0.48; P = <0.001). Our response rates are sufficient, but the responses of many women are still lacking which might have biased our results. Furthermore, the PCQ-Infertility scores at baseline measurement were already reasonably high, which could have limited the effect of the multifaceted improvement strategy. Because we only included women in infertile couples in our study, we cannot draw conclusions on the effect of an improvement strategy for patient-centred fertility care for partners. A multifaceted intervention with participation of patients did not improve total patient-centredness scores, although some effect could be observed in specific groups of women and in specific dimensions of patient-centredness. These results can guide future research, in which we should focus more on personalized strategies and outcome measures. This work was supported by Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), The Netherlands. There are no competing interests. Clinical Trials NCT01481064.

Improving the implementation of perioperative safety guidelines using a multifaceted intervention approach: protocol of the IMPROVE study, a stepped wedge cluster randomized trial.

BackgroundThis study is initiated to evaluate the effects, costs, and feasibility at the hospital and patient level of an evidence-based strategy to improve the use of Dutch perioperative safety guidelines. Based on current knowledge, expert opinions and expertise of the project team, a multifaceted implementation strategy has been developed.Methods/designThis is a stepped wedge cluster randomized trial including nine representative hospitals across The Netherlands. Hospitals are stratified into three groups according to hospital type and geographical location and randomized in terms of the period for receipt of the intervention. All adult surgical patients meeting the inclusion criteria are assessed for patient outcomes. The implementation strategy includes education, audit and feedback, organizational interventions (e.g., local embedding of the guidelines), team-directed interventions (e.g., multi-professional team training), reminders, as well as patient-mediated interventions (e.g., patient safety cards). To tailor the implementation activities, we developed a questionnaire to identify barriers for effective guideline adherence, based on (a) a theoretical framework for classifying barriers and facilitators, (b) an instrument for measuring determinants of innovations, and (c) 19 semi-structured interviews with perioperative key professionals. Primary outcome is guideline adherence measured at the hospital (i.e., cluster) and patient levels by a set of perioperative Patient Safety Indicators (PSIs), which was developed parallel to the perioperative guidelines. Secondary outcomes at the patient level are in-hospital complications, postoperative wound infections and mortality, length of hospital stay, and unscheduled transfer to the intensive care unit, non-elective readmission to the hospital and unplanned reoperation, all within 30 days after the initial surgery. Also, patient safety culture and team climate will be studied as potential determinants. Finally, a process evaluation is conducted to identify the compliance with the implementation strategy, as well as an economic evaluation to assess the costs. Data sources are registered clinical data and surveys. There is no form of blinding.DiscussionThe perioperative setting is an unexplored area with respect to implementation issues. This study is expected to yield important new evidence about the effects of a multifaceted approach on guideline adherence in the perioperative care setting.Trial registrationDutch trial registry: NTR3568Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-014-0198-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Seeing It from Both Sides: Do Approaches to Involving Patients in Improving Their Safety Risk Damaging the Trust between Patients and Healthcare Professionals? An Interview Study

ObjectiveEncouraging patients to be more vigilant about their care challenges the traditional dynamics of patient-healthcare professional interactions. This study aimed to explore, from the perspectives of both patients and frontline healthcare staff, the potential consequences of patient-mediated intervention as a way of pushing safety improvement through the involvement of patients.DesignQualitative study, using purposive sampling and semi-structured interviews with patients, their relatives and healthcare professionals. Emergent themes were identified using grounded theory, with data coded using NVIVO 8.Participants16 patients, 4 relatives, (mean age (sd) 60 years (15); 12 female, 8 male) and 39 healthcare professionals, (9 pharmacists, 11 doctors, 12 nurses, 7 health care assistants).SettingParticipants were sampled from general medical and surgical wards, taking acute and elective admissions, in two hospitals in north east England.ResultsPositive consequences were identified but some actions encouraged by current patient-mediated approaches elicited feelings of suspicion and mistrust. For example, patients felt speaking up might appear rude or disrespectful, were concerned about upsetting staff and worried that their care might be compromised. Staff, whilst apparently welcoming patient questions, appeared uncertain about patients’ motives for questioning and believed that patients who asked many questions and/or who wrote things down were preparing to complain. Behavioural implications were identified that could serve to exacerbate patient safety problems (e.g. staff avoiding contact with inquisitive patients or relatives; patients avoiding contact with unreceptive staff).ConclusionsApproaches that aim to push improvement in patient safety through the involvement of patients could engender mistrust and create negative tensions in the patient-provider relationship. A more collaborative approach, that encourages patients and healthcare staff to work together, is needed. Future initiatives should aim to shift the current focus away from “checking up” on individual healthcare professionals to one that engages both parties in the common goal of enhancing safety.

Improving patient-centeredness of fertility care using a multifaceted approach: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BackgroundBeside traditional outcomes of safety and (cost-)effectiveness, the Institute of Medicine states patient-centeredness as an independent outcome indicator to evaluate the quality of healthcare. Providing patient-centered care is important because patients want to be heard for their ideas and concerns. Healthcare areas associated with high emotions and intensive treatment periods could especially benefit from patient-centered care. How care can become optimally improved in patient-centeredness is unknown. Therefore, we will conduct a study in the context of Dutch fertility care to determine the effects of a multifaceted approach on patient-centeredness, patients’ quality of life (QoL) and levels of distress. Our aims are to investigate the effectiveness of a multifaceted approach and to identify determinants of a change in the level of patient-centeredness, patients’ QoL and distress levels. This paper presents the study protocol.Methods/DesignIn a cluster-randomized trial in 32 Dutch fertility clinics the effects of a multifaceted approach will be determined on the level of patient-centeredness (Patient-centredness Questionnaire – Infertility), patients’ QoL (FertiQoL) and levels of distress (SCREENIVF). The multifaceted approach includes audit and feedback, educational outreach visits and patient-mediated interventions. Potential determinants of a change in patient-centeredness, patients’ QoL and levels of distress will be collected by an addendum to the patients’ questionnaire and a professionals’ questionnaire. The latter includes the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument about the clinic’s culture as a possible determinant of an increase in patient-centered care.DiscussionThe study is expected to yield important new evidence about the effects of a multifaceted approach on levels of patient-centeredness, patients’ QoL and distress in fertility care. Furthermore, determinants associated with a change in these outcome measures will be studied. With knowledge of these results, patient-centered care and thus the quality of healthcare can be improved. Moreover, the results of this study could be useful for similar initiatives to improve the quality of care delivery. The results of this project are expected at the end of 2013.Trial registrationClinicialtrials.gov NCT01481064

Patientsʼ Perceptions of Sharing in Decisions

Shared decision making is the process in which a healthcare choice is made jointly by the health professional and the patient. Little is known about what patients view as effective or ineffective strategies to implement shared decision making in routine clinical practice. This systematic review evaluates the effectiveness of interventions to improve health professionals' adoption of shared decision making in routine clinical practice, as seen by patients. We searched electronic databases (PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO) from their inception to mid-March 2009. We found additional material by reviewing the reference lists of the studies found in the databases; systematic reviews of studies on shared decision making; the proceedings of various editions of the International Shared Decision Making Conference; and the transcripts of the Society for Medical Decision Making's meetings. In our study selection, we included randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, controlled before-and-after studies, and interrupted time series analyses in which patients evaluated interventions to improve health professionals' adoption of shared decision making. The interventions in question consisted of the distribution of printed educational material; educational meetings; audit and feedback; reminders; and patient-mediated initiatives (e.g. patient decision aids). Two reviewers independently screened the studies and extracted data. Statistical analyses considered categorical and continuous process measures. We computed the standardized effect size for each outcome at the 95% confidence interval. The primary outcome of interest was health professionals' adoption of shared decision making as reported by patients in a self-administered questionnaire. Of the 6764 search results, 21 studies reported 35 relevant comparisons. Overall, the quality of the studies ranged from 0% to 83%. Only three of the 21 studies reported a clinically significant effect for the primary outcome that favored the intervention. The first study compared an educational meeting and a patient-mediated intervention with another patient-mediated intervention (median improvement of 74%). The second compared an educational meeting, a patient-mediated intervention, and audit and feedback with an educational meeting on an alternative topic (improvement of 227%). The third compared an educational meeting and a patient-mediated intervention with usual care (p = 0.003). All three studies were limited to the patient-physician dyad. To reduce bias, future studies should improve methods and reporting, and should analyze costs and benefits, including those associated with training of health professionals. Multifaceted interventions that include educating health professionals about sharing decisions with patients and patient-mediated interventions, such as patient decision aids, appear promising for improving health professionals' adoption of shared decision making in routine clinical practice as seen by patients.

How Is Medication Prescribing Ceased?

Medication prescribing is a complex process where the focus tends to be on starting new medication, changing a drug regimen, and continuing a drug regimen. On occasion, a prudent approach to prescribing may necessitate ending an ongoing course of medication, either because it should not have been started in the first place; because its continued use would cause harm; or because the medication is no longer effective. To identify effective strategies for stopping pre-existing prescribing in situations where continued prescribing may no longer be clinically warranted. Systematic searches for English-language reports of experimental and quasi-experimental research were conducted in PubMed (1951-November 2009), EMBASE (1966-September 2008), and International Pharmaceutical Abstract b (1970-September 2008). A manual search for relevant review articles and a keyword search of a local database produced by a previous systematic search for prescribing influence and intervention research were also conducted. Following initial title screening for relevance 2 reviewers, using formal assessment and data extraction tools, independently assessed abstracts for relevance and full studies for quality before extracting data from studies selected for inclusion. Of 1306 articles reviewed, 12 were assessed to be of relevant, high-quality research. A variety of drugs were examined in the included studies with benzodiazepines the most common. Studies included in the review tested 9 different types of interventions. Effective interventions included patient-mediated interventions, manual reminders to prescribers, educational materials given to patients, a face-to-face intervention with prescribers, and a case of regulatory intervention. Partially effective interventions included audit and feedback, electronic reminders, educational materials alone sent to prescribers, and distance communication combined with educational materials sent to prescribers. It appears possible to stop the prescribing of a variety of medications with a range of interventions. A common theme in effective interventions is the involvement of patients in the stopping process. However, prescribing at the level of individual patients was rarely reported, with data often aggregated to number of doses or number of drugs per unit population, attributing any reduction to cessation. Such studies are not measuring the actual required outcome (stopping prescribing), and this may reflect the broader ambiguity about when or why it might be important to end a prescription. Much more research is required into the process of stopping pre-existing prescribing, paying particular attention to improving the outcomes that are measured.

Systematic Review of Interventions to Improve Prescribing

To update 2 comprehensive reviews of systematic reviews on prescribing interventions and identify the latest evidence about the effectiveness of the interventions. Systematic searches for English-language reports of experimental and quasi-experimental research were conducted in PubMed (1951-May 2007), EMBASE (1974-March 2008), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970-March 2008), and 11 other bibliographic databases of medical, social science, and business research. Following an initial title screening process and after selecting 6 specific intervention categories (identified from the previous reviews) in community settings, 2 reviewers independently assessed abstracts and then full studies for relevance and quality and extracted relevant data using formal assessment and data extraction tools. Results were then methodically incorporated into the findings of the 2 earlier reviews of systematic reviews. DATA SELECTION AND SYNTHESIS: Twenty-nine of 26,314 articles reviewed were assessed to be of relevant, high-quality research. Audit and feedback, together with educational outreach visits, were the focus of the majority of recent, high-quality research into prescribing interventions. These interventions were also the most effective in improving prescribing practice. A smaller number of studies included a patient-mediated intervention; this intervention was not consistently effective. There is insufficient recent research into manual reminders to confidently update earlier reviews and there remains insufficient evidence to draw conclusions regarding the effectiveness of local consensus processes or multidisciplinary teams. Educational outreach as well as audit and feedback continue to dominate research into prescribing interventions. These 2 prescribing interventions also most consistently show positive results. Much less research is conducted into other types of interventions and there is still very little effort to systematically test why interventions do or do not work.

Strategies for improving the quality of health care in maternal and child health in low‐ and middle‐income countries: an overview of systematic reviews

There are many systematic reviews of continuing education programmes and educational strategies for quality improvement in health care. Most of the reviewed studies are one-off evaluations rather than impact evaluations with long-term follow-up. There are few systematic reviews of organisational, financial and regulatory interventions, and few high-quality studies. These interventions are probably as or more important than educational strategies, although they are less well evaluated. Few studies have been undertaken in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) or that address maternal and child health (MCH). Thus, the results of the available studies and reviews need to be interpreted cautiously when applied to LMIC. Interactive workshops, reminders and multifaceted interventions can improve professional practice, and they generally have moderate effects. Educational outreach visits consistently improve prescribing but have variable effects on other behaviours. Audit and feedback interventions have variable effects on professional practice, but most often these are small to moderate effects. Mass-media and patient-mediated interventions may change professional practice. Multifaceted interventions that combine several quality-improvement strategies are also effective but may not be more so than single interventions. While all of these strategies are applicable to MCH in LMIC, the applicability of the results to rural settings, in particular, may be limited. Use of these strategies could exacerbate inequalities, and this should be taken into consideration when planning implementation. Scaling up and sustainability may be difficult to achieve in LMIC contexts and need careful consideration. The use of financial interventions has not been well studied; financial incentives and disincentives may be difficult to use effectively and efficiently, although their impact on practice needs to be considered. Organisational interventions are likely to be important, given that there are often underlying organisational or system problems. Regulatory interventions have not been well evaluated, but may sometimes be both inexpensive and effective. There are no 'magic bullets' or simple solutions for ensuring the quality of health care services. Interventions should be selected or tailored to address the underlying reasons for a failure to deliver effective services. Decision-makers should select the most appropriate interventions for specific problems. This requires a governance structure that clearly assigns responsibility for quality-improvement activities, priority setting, selection and design of interventions, and evaluation.

What Interventions Should Pharmacists Employ to Impact Health Practitioners’ Prescribing Practices?

To determine which interventions are effective in influencing health practitioners' prescribing practices and explore differences in intervention complexity, setting, sustainability, cost effectiveness, and impact on patient outcomes. A systematic search for English-language systematic reviews was performed in MEDLINE, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from the date of inception to July 2005 using search terms in accordance with Cochrane recommendations. Included reviews were required to clearly report a search strategy, inclusion/exclusion criteria, literature assessment criteria, and methods for synthesizing or summarizing information and references. Two reviewers independently identified studies for inclusion, assessed study quality, and extracted relevant information. Interventions were classified as consistently effective, inconsistently effective, and effectiveness uncertain. Thirty-four of 4585 titles reviewed met the inclusion criteria. Quality scores ranged from 70% to 100%. Consistently effective interventions included reminders (manual and computerized), audit and feedback, educational outreach visits, organizational strategies, and patient-mediated interventions. Inconsistently effective interventions included computer decision support systems and educational meetings. Multi-faceted interventions were consistently shown to be more efficacious than single interventions. Limited data precluded exploration of the effects of interventions in different settings, sustainability of effect, cost effectiveness, and patient clinical outcomes. Interventions that are most effective for impacting prescribing practice include audit and feedback, reminders, educational outreach visits, and patient-mediated interventions. To maximize impact, pharmacists' efforts to positively impact prescribing practices should focus on these intervention types rather than relying primarily on passive didactics or dissemination of guidelines.

Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy: From Evidence to Application: The Seventh ACCP Conference on Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy

This chapter about implementation strategies for practice guidelines is part of the 7th ACCP Conference on Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy: Evidence Based Guidelines. Grade 1 recommendations are strong and indicate that the benefits do, or do not, outweigh risks, burden, and costs. Grade 2 suggests that feasibility, acceptability and cost related to implementation strategies may lead to different choices depending on the practice setting (for a full understanding of the grading see Guyatt et al, CHEST 2004; 126:179S-187S). To encourage uptake of guidelines to reduce thrombosis, we recommend that appreciable resources be devoted to distribution of educational material (Grade 2B). We suggest that few resources be devoted to educational meetings (Grade 2B), to audit and feedback (Grade 2B), or to educational outreach visits (Grade 2B) to encourage uptake of the guidelines. We suggest that appreciable resources be devoted to computer reminders (Grade 2A) and to patient-mediated interventions (Grade 2B) to encourage uptake of the guidelines. This review suggests that there are few implementation strategies that are of unequivocal, consistent benefit, and that are clearly and consistently worth resource investment. Fully informed decisions will require additional research to identify effective guideline implementation strategies to optimize antithrombotic and thrombolytic therapy.