Dataset Information

Comparing the application of two theoretical frameworks to describe determinants of adverse medical device event reporting: secondary analysis of qualitative interview data.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Post-market surveillance of medical devices is reliant on physician reporting of adverse medical device events (AMDEs). Few studies have examined factors that influence whether and how physicians report AMDEs, an essential step in the development of behaviour change interventions. This study was a secondary analysis comparing application of the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases (TICD) framework to identify potential behaviour change interventions that correspond to determinants of AMDE reporting.

Methods

A previous study involving qualitative interviews with Canadian physicians that implant medical devices identified themes reflecting AMDE reporting determinants. In this secondary analysis, themes that emerged from the primary analysis were independently mapped to the TDF and TICD. Determinants and corresponding intervention options arising from both frameworks (and both mappers) were compared.

Results

Both theoretical frameworks were useful for identifying interventions corresponding to behavioural determinants of AMDE reporting. Information or education strategies that provide evidence about AMDEs, and audit and feedback of AMDE data were identified as interventions to target the theme of physician beliefs; improving information systems, and reminder cues, prompts and awards were identified as interventions to address determinants arising from the organization or systems themes; and modifying financial/non-financial incentives and sharing data on outcomes associated with AMDEs were identified as interventions to target device market themes. Numerous operational challenges were encountered in the application of both frameworks including a lack of clarity about how directly relevant to themes the domains/determinants should be, how many domains/determinants to select, if and how to resolve discrepancies across multiple mappers, and how to choose interventions from among the large number associated with selected domains/determinants.

Conclusions

Given discrepancies in mapping themes to determinants/domains and the resulting interventions offered by the two frameworks, uncertainty remains about how to choose interventions that best match behavioural determinants in a given context. Further research is needed to provide more nuanced guidance on the application of TDF and TICD for a broader audience, which is likely to increase the utility and uptake of these frameworks in practice.

SUBMITTER: Desveaux L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5987566 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparing the application of two theoretical frameworks to describe determinants of adverse medical device event reporting: secondary analysis of qualitative interview data.

Desveaux Laura L Gagliardi Anna R AR

BMC health services research 20180604 1

<h4>Background</h4>Post-market surveillance of medical devices is reliant on physician reporting of adverse medical device events (AMDEs). Few studies have examined factors that influence whether and how physicians report AMDEs, an essential step in the development of behaviour change interventions. This study was a secondary analysis comparing application of the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases (TICD) framework to identify potential behavi ...[more]

PMID: 29866152

Similar Datasets

Project description:Study Design?Systematic review. Objectives?(1) To compare the quality of adverse event (AE) methodology and reporting among randomized trials comparing lumbar fusion with lumbar total disk replacement (TDR) using established AE reporting systems; (2) to compare the AEs and reoperations of lumbar spinal fusion with those from lumbar TDR; (3) to make recommendations on how to report AEs in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) so that surgeons and patients have more-detailed and comprehensive information when making treatment decisions. Methods?A systematic search of PubMed, the Cochrane collaboration database, and the National Guideline Clearinghouse through May 2015 was conducted. Randomized controlled trials with at least 2 years of follow-up comparing lumbar artificial disk replacement with lumbar fusion were included. Patients were required to have axial or mechanical low back pain of ?3 months' duration due to degenerative joint disease defined as degenerative disk disease, facet joint disease, or spondylosis. Outcomes included the quality of AE acquisition methodology and results reporting, and AEs were defined as those secondary to the procedure and reoperations. Individual and pooled relative risks and their 95% confidence intervals comparing lumbar TDR with fusion were calculated. Results?RCTs demonstrated a generally poor description of methods for assessing AEs. There was a consistent lack of clear definition or grading for these events. Furthermore, there was a high degree of variation in reporting of surgery-related AEs. Most studies lacked adequate reporting of the timing of AEs, and there were no clear distinctions between acute or chronic AEs. Meta-analysis of the pooled data demonstrated a twofold increased risk of AEs in patients having lumbar fusion compared with patients having lumbar TDR at 2-year follow-up, and this relative risk was maintained at 5 years. Furthermore, the pooled data demonstrated a 1.7 times greater relative risk of reoperation in the fusion group compared with lumbar TDR, although this risk decreased to 1.1 at 5-year follow-up. However, given the lack of quality and consistency in the methods of recording and reporting of AEs, we are unable to make a clear recommendation of one treatment over the other. Conclusions?Based on the currently available literature, lumbar TDR appears to be comparable in safety to lumbar fusion. However, due to lack of consistency in reporting of AEs, it is difficult to make conclusions regarding the true safety profile of lumbar TDR. Standardization in AE reporting will significantly improve the reliability of the current literature.

Project description:BackgroundTaxanes are an essential class of antineoplastic agents used to treat various cancers and are a fundamental cause of hypersensitivity reactions. In addition, other adverse events, such as bone marrow toxicity and peripheral neuropathy, can lead to chemotherapy discontinuation. This study aimed to evaluate the safety of taxanes in the real world.MethodsTaxane-associated adverse events were identified by the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities Preferred Terms and analyzed and compared by mining the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System pharmacovigilance database from January 2004 to December 2019. Reported adverse events, such as hypersensitivity reaction, bone marrow toxicity, and peripheral neuropathy, were analyzed with the following signal detection algorithms: reporting odds ratio (ROR), proportional reporting ratio (PRR), multi-item gamma Poisson shrinker (MGPS), Bayesian confidence propagation neural network (BCPNN), and logistic regression methods. Adverse outcome events and death outcome rates were compared between different taxane groups using Pearson's χ2 test, whereas significance was determined at P < 0.05 with a 95% confidence interval (CI).ResultsA total of 966 reports of hypersensitivity reactions, 1109 reports of bone marrow toxicity, and 1374 reports of peripheral neuropathy were analyzed. Compared with paclitaxel and docetaxel, bone marrow toxicity following the use of nab-paclitaxel had the highest ROR of 6.45 (95% two-sided CI, 6.05-6.88), PRR of 5.66, (χ2 = 4342.98), information component of 2.50 (95% one-sided CI = 2.34), and empirical Bayes geometric mean of 5.64 (95% one-sided CI = 5.34). Peripheral neuropathy following the use of nab-paclitaxel showed a higher ROR of 12.78 (95% two-sided CI, 11.55-14.14), PRR of 12.16 (χ2 = 4060.88), information component of 3.59 (95% one-sided CI = 3.25), and empirical Bayes geometric mean of 12.07 (95% one-sided CI = 11.09).ConclusionsThe results showed that bone marrow toxicity and peripheral neuropathy were the major adverse events induced by taxanes. Nab-paclitaxel exhibited the highest potential for taxane-associated adverse events. Further research in the future is warranted to explain taxane-associated adverse effects in real-world circumstances.

Dataset Information

Comparing the application of two theoretical frameworks to describe determinants of adverse medical device event reporting: secondary analysis of qualitative interview data.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Comparing the application of two theoretical frameworks to describe determinants of adverse medical device event reporting: secondary analysis of qualitative interview data.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets