Dataset Information

Improving Diabetes care through Examining, Advising, and prescribing (IDEA): protocol for a theory-based cluster randomised controlled trial of a multiple behaviour change intervention aimed at primary healthcare professionals.

ABSTRACT:

Background

New clinical research findings may require clinicians to change their behaviour to provide high-quality care to people with type 2 diabetes, likely requiring them to change multiple different clinical behaviours. The present study builds on findings from a UK-wide study of theory-based behavioural and organisational factors associated with prescribing, advising, and examining consistent with high-quality diabetes care.

Aim

To develop and evaluate the effectiveness and cost of an intervention to improve multiple behaviours in clinicians involved in delivering high-quality care for type 2 diabetes.

Design/methods

We will conduct a two-armed cluster randomised controlled trial in 44 general practices in the North East of England to evaluate a theory-based behaviour change intervention. We will target improvement in six underperformed clinical behaviours highlighted in quality standards for type 2 diabetes: prescribing for hypertension; prescribing for glycaemic control; providing physical activity advice; providing nutrition advice; providing on-going education; and ensuring that feet have been examined. The primary outcome will be the proportion of patients appropriately prescribed and examined (using anonymised computer records), and advised (using anonymous patient surveys) at 12 months. We will use behaviour change techniques targeting motivational, volitional, and impulsive factors that we have previously demonstrated to be predictive of multiple health professional behaviours involved in high-quality type 2 diabetes care. We will also investigate whether the intervention was delivered as designed (fidelity) by coding audiotaped workshops and interventionist delivery reports, and operated as hypothesised (process evaluation) by analysing responses to theory-based postal questionnaires. In addition, we will conduct post-trial qualitative interviews with practice teams to further inform the process evaluation, and a post-trial economic analysis to estimate the costs of the intervention and cost of service use.

Discussion

Consistent with UK Medical Research Council guidance and building on previous development research, this pragmatic cluster randomised trial will evaluate the effectiveness of a theory-based complex intervention focusing on changing multiple clinical behaviours to improve quality of diabetes care.

Trial registration

ISRCTN66498413.

SUBMITTER: Presseau J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4049486 | biostudies-literature | 2014 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Improving Diabetes care through Examining, Advising, and prescribing (IDEA): protocol for a theory-based cluster randomised controlled trial of a multiple behaviour change intervention aimed at primary healthcare professionals.

Presseau Justin J Hawthorne Gillian G Sniehotta Falko F FF Steen Nick N Francis Jill J JJ Johnston Marie M Mackintosh Joan J Grimshaw Jeremy M JM Kaner Eileen E Elovainio Marko M Deverill Mark M Coulthard Tom T Brown Heather H Hunter Margaret M Eccles Martin P MP

Implementation science : IS 20140524

<h4>Background</h4>New clinical research findings may require clinicians to change their behaviour to provide high-quality care to people with type 2 diabetes, likely requiring them to change multiple different clinical behaviours. The present study builds on findings from a UK-wide study of theory-based behavioural and organisational factors associated with prescribing, advising, and examining consistent with high-quality diabetes care.<h4>Aim</h4>To develop and evaluate the effectiveness and c ...[more]

PMID: 24886606

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:National diabetes audits in the UK show room for improvement in the quality of care delivered to people with type 2 diabetes in primary care. Systematic reviews of quality improvement interventions show that such approaches can be effective but there is wide variability between trials and little understanding concerning what explains this variability. A national cohort study of primary care across 99 UK practices identified modifiable predictors of healthcare professionals' prescribing, advising and foot examination. Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of an implementation intervention to improve six guideline-recommended health professional behaviours in managing type 2 diabetes in primary care: prescribing for blood pressure and glycaemic control, providing physical activity and nutrition advice and providing updated diabetes education and foot examination. METHODS:Two-armed cluster randomised trial involving 44 general practices. Primary outcomes (at 12 months follow-up): from electronic medical records, the proportion of patients receiving additional prescriptions for blood pressure and insulin initiation for glycaemic control and having a foot examination; and from a patient survey of a random sample of 100 patients per practice, reported receipt of updated diabetes education and physical activity and nutrition advice. RESULTS:The implementation intervention did not lead to statistically significant improvement on any of the six clinical behaviours. 1,138,105 prescriptions were assessed. Intervention (29% to 37% patients) and control arms (31% to 35%) increased insulin initiation relative to baseline but were not statistically significantly different at follow-up (IRR 1.18, 95%CI 0.95-1.48). Intervention (45% to 53%) and control practices (45% to 50%) increased blood pressure prescription from baseline to follow-up but were not statistically significantly different at follow-up (IRR 1.05, 95%CI 0.96 to 1.16). Intervention (75 to 78%) and control practices (74 to 79%) increased foot examination relative to baseline; control practices increased statistically significantly more (OR 0.84, 95%CI 0.75-0.94). Fewer patients in intervention (33%) than control practices (40%) reported receiving updated diabetes education (OR?=?0.74, 95%CI 0.57-0.97). No statistically significant differences were observed in patient reports of having had a discussion about nutrition (intervention?=?73%; control?=?72%; OR?=?0.98, 95%CI 0.59-1.64) or physical activity (intervention?=?57%; control?=?62%; OR?=?0.79, 95%CI 0.56-1.11). Development and delivery of the intervention cost £1191 per practice. CONCLUSIONS:There was no measurable benefit to practices' participation in this intervention. Despite widespread use of outreach interventions worldwide, there is a need to better understand which techniques at which intensity are optimally suited to address the multiple clinical behaviours involved in improving care for type 2 diabetes. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ISRCTN, ISRCTN66498413 . Registered April 4, 2013.

Project description:BackgroundFinnish clinical guidelines are evolving toward integration of knowledge modules into the electronic health record in the Evidence-Based Medicine electronic Decision Support project. It therefore became important to study which factors affect professionals' intention to use clinical guidelines generally in their decision-making on patient care. A theory-based approach is a possible solution to explore determinants of professionals' behaviour. The study's aim was to produce baseline information for developers and implementers by using the theory of planned behaviour.MethodsA cross-sectional internet-based survey was carried out in Finnish healthcare organisations within three hospital districts. The target population (n = 2,252) included physicians, nurses, and other professionals, of whom 806 participated. Indicators of the intention to use clinical guidelines were observed by using a theory-based questionnaire. The main data analysis was done by means of multiple linear regressions.ResultsThe results indicated that all theory-based variables--the attitude toward the behaviour, the subjective norm, and the perceived behaviour control--were important factors associated with the professionals' intention to use clinical practice guidelines for their area of specialisation in the decisions they would make on the care of patients in the next three months. In addition, both the nurse and the physician factors had positive (p < 0.01) effects on this intention in comparison to other professionals. In the similar models for all professions, the strongest factor for the physicians was the perceived behaviour control, while the key factor for the nurses and the other professionals was the subjective norm. This means that context- and guideline-based factors either facilitate or hinder the intention to use clinical guidelines among physicians and, correspondingly, normative beliefs related to social pressures do so for nurses and other healthcare professionals.ConclusionsThe results confirm suggestions that the theory of planned behaviour is a suitable theoretical basis for implementing clinical guidelines in healthcare practices. Our new finding was that, in general, profession had an effect on intention to use clinical guidelines in patient care. Therefore, the study reaffirms the general contention that different strategies need to be in place when clinical guidelines are targeted at different professional groups.

Project description:BackgroundPharmaceutical care has been implemented and regulated differently across Europe with no consensus among countries in relation with professional competencies and especially on nurse prescribing. Demophac Project funded by the European Commission aims to develop a Pan-European Pharmaceutical Care Model with collaboration of 14 partner teams across Europe including Spain where nurse prescribing is starting its implementation at regional level. The aim of the study was to increase understanding of the role of nurses in Pharmaceutical care in Spain after the Nurse Prescribing Regulation approved in 2018 throughout exploring the views and expectations of health professionals involved in the representative settings.Methods and findingsIn depth interviews were conducted in a structure previously agreed by the European Demophac partnership around four topics associated with the Nursing ideal role in pharmaceutical care and the ideal interaction with other healthcare professionals. A grounded-theory approach based on Corbin & Strauss was conducted to interpret collected data from the Spanish most representative settings (primary care, specialized care and residential care for older population). Participants were health professionals involved in pharmaceutical care that accepted to participate (nurses (n = 7), physicians (n = 8) and pharmacists (n = 9)). A pharmaceutical care comprehensive model for the Spanish context considering the recently approved Nurse Prescribing role and the interprofessional collaboration and communication was developed towards facilitating the understanding in such context and the contribution to the unified European Demophac Framework.ConclusionsNurses are primarily responsible for population's Pharmaceutical Care while other professionals pivot on them to provide quality healthcare on a multidisciplinary level. Nurse prescribing may contribute efficiently to the Spanish Health System though more consensus in terms of nurses' training nationwide and enhancement in communication among different professionals within healthcare organizations is required to achieve adequate integrated care into practice.

Project description:BACKGROUND:People with dementia (PwD) face unique challenges with medicines management, yet little is known about these challenges from the perspectives of primary healthcare professionals, particularly general practitioners (GPs) and community pharmacists. Few medicines management interventions have been developed which are aimed at community-dwelling PwD. This study sought to develop an intervention to improve medicines management for PwD in primary care using a theory-informed approach. METHODS:Semi-structured interviews were conducted with GPs (n =?15) and community pharmacists (n =?15) to explore participants' views and experiences of medicines management for PwD, and their perceptions of barriers and facilitators to successful medicines management for PwD. The 14-domain Theoretical Domains Framework was the underpinning theoretical guide, allowing key theoretical domains to be identified and mapped to behaviour change techniques (BCTs) which are considered the 'active ingredients' of an intervention. Draft interventions were developed to operationalise selected BCTs and were presented to GPs and community pharmacists during task groups. Final selection of an intervention for feasibility testing was guided by feedback provided during these task groups and through application of the APEASE (Affordability, Practicability, Effectiveness/cost-effectiveness, Acceptability, Side-effects/safety, Equity) criteria. RESULTS:Participants expressed a number of concerns about medicines management for PwD, particularly monitoring adherence to medication regimens and conducting medication review. Two draft interventions comprising selected BCTs ('Modelling or demonstration of behaviour'; 'Salience of consequences'; 'Health consequences'; 'Social and environmental consequences'; 'Action planning'; Social support or encouragement', 'Self-monitoring of behaviour') were developed, each targeting GPs and community pharmacists. Following the task groups and discussions within the research team, the community pharmacy-based intervention was selected for future feasibility testing. The intervention will target community pharmacists to conduct a medication review (incorporating an adherence check) with a PwD, delivered as an online video demonstrating key behaviours. The video will include feedback emphasising positive outcomes of performing the behaviours. Action planning and a quick reference guide will be used as complementary intervention components. CONCLUSIONS:A community pharmacist-based intervention has been developed targeting medicines management for PwD in primary care using a systematic, theory-informed approach. Future work will determine the usability and acceptability of implementing this intervention in clinical practice.

Project description:BackgroundClinicians draw on instructional approaches when training patients with anaphylaxis to use adrenaline autoinjectors, but patient use is poor. Psychological barriers to these behaviours exist but are not considered routinely when training patients to use autoinjectors. Health Psychology principles suggest exploring these factors with patients could improve their autoinjector use.ObjectiveTo evaluate the impact of a 90-minute workshop training clinicians in strategies and techniques for exploring and responding to psychological barriers to autoinjector use with patients. Attendees' knowledge, confidence and likelihood of using the strategies were expected to improve.MethodsImpact was evaluated using a longitudinal mixed-method design. Twenty-nine clinicians (general and specialist nurses, general practitioners, and pharmacists) supporting patients with anaphylaxis in UK hospitals and general practice attended. Self-rated knowledge, confidence, and likelihood of using the strategies taught were evaluated online 1 week before, 1 to 3, and 6 to 8 weeks after the workshop. Clinicians were invited for telephone interview after attending to explore qualitatively the workshop impact.Resultsχ2 analyses were significant in most cases (P < .05), with sustained (6-8 weeks) improvements in knowledge, confidence, and likelihood of using the strategies taught. Thematic analysis of interview data showed the workshop enhanced attendees' knowledge of the care pathway, understanding of patient's experience of anaphylaxis as psychological not purely physical, and altered their communication with this and other patient groups. However, interviewees perceived lack of time and organisational factors as barriers to using the strategies and techniques taught in clinical contexts.ConclusionTraining clinicians in psychologically informed strategies produce sustained improvements in their confidence and knowledge around patient autoinjector education, and their likelihood of using strategies in clinical practice.Clinical relevanceExploring psychological barriers should be part of training patients with anaphylaxis in autoinjector use.

Dataset Information

Improving Diabetes care through Examining, Advising, and prescribing (IDEA): protocol for a theory-based cluster randomised controlled trial of a multiple behaviour change intervention aimed at primary healthcare professionals.

Background

Aim

Design/methods

Discussion

Trial registration

Publications

Improving Diabetes care through Examining, Advising, and prescribing (IDEA): protocol for a theory-based cluster randomised controlled trial of a multiple behaviour change intervention aimed at primary healthcare professionals.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets