Dataset Information

The value of theory in programmes to implement clinical guidelines: Insights from a retrospective mixed-methods evaluation of a programme to increase adherence to national guidelines for chronic disease in primary care.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Programmes have had limited success in improving guideline adherence for chronic disease. Use of theory is recommended but is often absent in programmes conducted in 'real-world' rather than research settings.

Materials and methods

This mixed-methods study tested a retrospective theory-based approach to evaluate a 'real-world' programme in primary care to improve adherence to national guidelines for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Qualitative data, comprising analysis of documents generated throughout the programme (n>300), in-depth interviews with planners (clinicians, managers and improvement experts involved in devising, planning, and implementing the programme, n = 14) and providers (practice clinicians, n = 14) were used to construct programme theories, experiences of implementation and contextual factors influencing care. Quantitative analyses comprised controlled before-and-after analyses to test 'early' and evolved' programme theories with comparators grounded in each theory. 'Early' theory predicted the programme would reduce emergency hospital admissions (EHA). It was tested using national analysis of standardized borough-level EHA rates between programme and comparator boroughs. 'Evolved' theory predicted practices with higher programme participation would increase guideline adherence and reduce EHA and costs. It was tested using a difference-in-differences analysis with linked primary and secondary care data to compare changes in diagnosis, management, EHA and costs, over time and by programme participation.

Results

Contrary to programme planners' predictions in 'early' and 'evolved' programme theories, admissions did not change following the programme. However, consistent with 'evolved' theory, higher guideline adoption occurred in practices with greater programme participation.

Conclusions

Retrospectively constructing theories based on the ideas of programme planners can enable evaluators to address some limitations encountered when evaluating programmes without a theoretical base. Prospectively articulating theory aided by existing models and mid-range implementation theories may strengthen guideline adoption efforts by prompting planners to scrutinise implementation methods. Benefits of deriving programme theory, with or without the aid of mid-range implementation theories, however, may be limited when the evidence underpinning guidelines is flawed.

SUBMITTER: Sheringham J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5362095 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionHumanitarian migrants often suffer from poor health, including oral health. Reasons for their oral health conditions include difficult migration trajectories, poor nutrition and limited financial resources. Oral health promotion is crucial for improving oral health-related quality of life of humanitarian migrants. While community-level oral health promotion programmes for humanitarian migrants have been implemented (eg, in host countries and refugee camps), there is scant literature evaluating their transferability or effectiveness. Given that these programmes yield unique context-specific outcomes, the purpose of this study is to understand how community-level oral health promotion programmes for humanitarian migrants work, in which contexts and why.Methods and analysisRealist review, a theory-driven literature review methodology, incorporates a causal heuristic called context-mechanism-outcome configurations to explain how programmes work, for whom, and under which conditions. Using Pawson's five steps of realist review (clarifying scope and drafting an initial programme theory; identifying relevant studies; quality appraisal and data extraction; data synthesis; and dissemination of findings), we begin by developing an initial programme theory using the references of a scoping review on the oral health of refugees and asylum seekers and through hand searching in Google Scholar. Following stakeholder validation of our initial programme theory, we will locate additional evidence by searching in four databases (Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, Cochrane Library and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL)) to test and refine our initial programme theory into a middle-range realist programme theory. The resultant theory will explain how community-level oral health promotion programmes for humanitarian migrants work, for whom, in which contexts and why.Ethics and disseminationSince this study is a review and no primary data collection will be involved, institutional ethics approval is not required. The findings of this study will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals, local and international conferences, and via social media.Trial registration numberCRD42021226085.

Project description:IntroductionThe 2011 national guidelines for the management of childhood community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) recommended narrow-spectrum antibiotics (eg, ampicillin) for most children hospitalized with CAP. We assessed the impact of these guidelines on antibiotic prescribing at 3 children's hospitals.MethodsChildren hospitalized with clinical and radiographic CAP were enrolled from January 1, 2010, through June 30, 2012, at 3 hospitals in Tennessee and Utah as part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Etiology of Pneumonia in the Community study. Antibiotic selection was determined by the treating provider. The impact of the guidelines and hospital-level implementation efforts was determined by assessing the monthly percentage of enrolled children receiving third-generation cephalosporins or penicillin/ampicillin. Segmented linear regression was used to compare observed antibiotic selection in the postguideline period with expected antibiotic use projected from preguideline months.ResultsOverall, 2121 children were included. During the preguideline period, 52.8% (interquartile range 47.8-56.6) of children with CAP received third-generation cephalosporins, whereas 2.7% (2.1, 7.0) received penicillin/ampicillin. By 9 months postguidelines, third-generation cephalosporin use declined (absolute difference -12.4% [95% confidence interval -19.8% to -5.1%]), whereas penicillin/ampicillin use increased (absolute difference 11.3% [4.3%-18.3%]). The most substantial changes were noted at those institutions that implemented guideline-related dissemination activities.ConclusionsAfter publication of national guidelines, third-generation cephalosporin use declined and penicillin/ampicillin use increased among children hospitalized with CAP. Changes were more apparent among those institutions that proactively disseminated the guidelines, suggesting that targeted, hospital-based efforts are important for timely implementation of guideline recommendations.

Project description:Background and objectives: Although primary care clinicians provide >60% of U.S. asthma care, no nationally representative study has examined variation in adherence among primary care groups to four cornerstone domains of the Expert Panel Report-3 asthma guidelines: assessment/monitoring, patient education, environmental assessment, and medications. We used the 2012 National Asthma Survey of Physicians: National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey to compare adherence by family/general medicine practitioners (FM/GM), internists, pediatricians and Community Health Center mid-level clinicians (CHC). Methods: Adherence was self-reported (n = 1355 clinicians). Adjusted odds of almost always adhering to each recommendation (≥75% of the time) were estimated controlling for clinician/practice characteristics, and agreement and self-efficacy with guideline recommendations. Results: A higher percentage of pediatricians adhered to most assessment/monitoring recommendations compared to FM/GM and other groups (e.g. 71.6% [SE 4.0] almost always assessed daytime symptoms versus 50.6% [SE 5.1]-51.1% [SE 5.8], t-test p < 0.05) but low percentages from all groups almost always performed spirometry (6.8% [SE 2.0]-16.8% [SE 4.7]). Pediatricians were more likely to provide asthma action/treatment plans than FM/GM and internists. Internists were more likely to assess school/work triggers than pediatricians and CHC (environmental assessment). All groups prescribed inhaled corticosteroids for daily control (84.0% [SE 3.7]-90.7% [SE 2.5]) (medications). In adjusted analyses, pediatric specialty, high self-efficacy and frequent specialist referral were associated with high adherence. Conclusions: Pediatricians were more likely to report high adherence than other clinicians. Self- efficacy and frequent referral were also associated with adherence. Adherence was higher for history-taking recommendations and lower for recommendations involving patient education, equipment and expertise.

Project description:BackgroundSepsis has a mortality rate of 40 %, which can be halved if the evidence-based "Sepsis Six" care bundle is implemented within 1 h. UK audit shows low implementation rates. Interventions to improve this have had minimal effects. Quality improvement programmes could be further developed by using theoretical frameworks (Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF)) to modify existing interventions by identifying influences on clinical behaviour and selecting appropriate content. The aim of this study was to illustrate using this process to modify an intervention designed using plan-do-study-act (P-D-S-A) cycles that had achieved partial success in improving Sepsis Six implementation in one hospital.MethodsFactors influencing implementation were investigated using the TDF to analyse interviews with 34 health professionals. The nursing team who developed and facilitated the intervention used the data to select modifications using the Behaviour Change Technique (BCT) Taxonomy (v1) and the APEASE criteria: affordability, practicability, effectiveness, acceptability, safety and equity.ResultsFive themes were identified as influencing implementation and guided intervention modification. These were:(1) "knowing what to do and why" (TDF domains knowledge, social/professional role and identity); (2) "risks and benefits" (beliefs about consequences), e.g. fear of harming patients through fluid overload acting as a barrier to implementation versus belief in the bundle's effectiveness acting as a lever to implementation; (3) "working together" (social influences, social/professional role and identity), e.g. team collaboration acting as a lever versus doctor/nurse conflict acting as a barrier; (4) "empowerment and support" (beliefs about capabilities, social/professional role and identity, behavioural regulation, social influences), e.g. involving staff in intervention development acting as a lever versus lack of confidence to challenge colleagues' decisions not to implement acting as a barrier; (5) "staffing levels" (environmental context and resources), e.g. shortages of doctors at night preventing implementation. The modified intervention included six new BCTs and consisted of two additional components (Sepsis Six training for the Hospital at Night Co-ordinator; a partnership agreement endorsing engagement of all clinical staff and permitting collegial challenge) and modifications to two existing components (staff education sessions; documents and materials).ConclusionsThis work demonstrates the feasibility of the TDF and BCT Taxonomy (v1) for developing an existing quality improvement intervention. The tools are compatible with the pragmatic P-D-S-A cycle approach generally used in quality improvement work.