Dataset Information

Collaborative writing applications in healthcare: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Collaborative writing applications (CWAs), such as wikis and Google Documents, hold the potential to improve the use of evidence in both public health and healthcare. Although a growing body of literature indicates that CWAs could have positive effects on healthcare, such as improved collaboration, behavioural change, learning, knowledge management, and adaptation of knowledge to local context, this has never been assessed systematically. Moreover, several questions regarding safety, reliability, and legal aspects exist.

Objectives

The objectives of this review were to (1) assess the effects of the use of CWAs on process (including the behaviour of healthcare professionals) and patient outcomes, (2) critically appraise and summarise current evidence on the use of resources, costs, and cost-effectiveness associated with CWAs to improve professional practices and patient outcomes, and (3) explore the effects of different CWA features (e.g. open versus closed) and different implementation factors (e.g. the presence of a moderator) on process and patient outcomes.

Search methods

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and 11 other electronic databases. We searched the grey literature, two trial registries, CWA websites, individual journals, and conference proceedings. We also contacted authors and experts in the field. We did not apply date or language limits. We searched for published literature to August 2016, and grey literature to September 2015.

Selection criteria

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised controlled trials (NRCTs), controlled before-and-after (CBA) studies, interrupted time series (ITS) studies, and repeated measures studies (RMS), in which CWAs were used as an intervention to improve the process of care, patient outcomes, or healthcare costs.

Data collection and analysis

Teams of two review authors independently assessed the eligibility of studies. Disagreements were resolved by discussion, and when consensus was not reached, a third review author was consulted.

Main results

We screened 11,993 studies identified from the electronic database searches and 346 studies from grey literature sources. We analysed the full text of 99 studies. None of the studies met the eligibility criteria; two potentially relevant studies are ongoing.

Authors' conclusions

While there is a high number of published studies about CWAs, indicating that this is an active field of research, additional studies using rigorous experimental designs are needed to assess their impact and cost-effectiveness on process and patient outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Archambault PM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6481880 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Collaborative writing applications (eg, wikis and Google Documents) hold the potential to improve the use of evidence in both public health and health care. The rapid rise in their use has created the need for a systematic synthesis of the evidence of their impact as knowledge translation (KT) tools in the health care sector and for an inventory of the factors that affect their use. OBJECTIVE:Through the Levac six-stage methodology, a scoping review was undertaken to explore the depth and breadth of evidence about the effective, safe, and ethical use of wikis and collaborative writing applications (CWAs) in health care. METHODS:Multiple strategies were used to locate studies. Seven scientific databases and 6 grey literature sources were queried for articles on wikis and CWAs published between 2001 and September 16, 2011. In total, 4436 citations and 1921 grey literature items were screened. Two reviewers independently reviewed citations, selected eligible studies, and extracted data using a standardized form. We included any paper presenting qualitative or quantitative empirical evidence concerning health care and CWAs. We defined a CWA as any technology that enables the joint and simultaneous editing of a webpage or an online document by many end users. We performed qualitative content analysis to identify the factors that affect the use of CWAs using the Gagnon framework and their effects on health care using the Donabedian framework. RESULTS:Of the 111 studies included, 4 were experimental, 5 quasi-experimental, 5 observational, 52 case studies, 23 surveys about wiki use, and 22 descriptive studies about the quality of information in wikis. We classified them by theme: patterns of use of CWAs (n=26), quality of information in existing CWAs (n=25), and CWAs as KT tools (n=73). A high prevalence of CWA use (ie, more than 50%) is reported in 58% (7/12) of surveys conducted with health care professionals and students. However, we found only one longitudinal study showing that CWA use is increasing in health care. Moreover, contribution rates remain low and the quality of information contained in different CWAs needs improvement. We identified 48 barriers and 91 facilitators in 4 major themes (factors related to the CWA, users' knowledge and attitude towards CWAs, human environment, and organizational environment). We also found 57 positive and 23 negative effects that we classified into processes and outcomes. CONCLUSIONS:Although we found some experimental and quasi-experimental studies of the effectiveness and safety of CWAs as educational and KT interventions, the vast majority of included studies were observational case studies about CWAs being used by health professionals and patients. More primary research is needed to find ways to address the different barriers to their use and to make these applications more useful for different stakeholders.

Project description:BACKGROUND:In the previous version of this review, the effectiveness of interventions tailored to barriers to change was found to be uncertain. OBJECTIVES:To assess the effectiveness of interventions tailored to address identified barriers to change on professional practice or patient outcomes. SEARCH STRATEGY:For this update, in addition to the EPOC Register and pending files, we searched the following databases without language restrictions, from inception until August 2007: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, BNI and HMIC. We searched the National Research Register to November 2007. We undertook further searches to October 2009 to identify potentially eligible published or ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA:Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions tailored to address prospectively identified barriers to change that reported objectively measured professional practice or healthcare outcomes in which at least one group received an intervention designed to address prospectively identified barriers to change. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:Two reviewers independently assessed quality and extracted data. We undertook quantitative and qualitative analyses. The quantitative analyses had two elements.1. We carried out a meta-regression to compare interventions tailored to address identified barriers to change with either no interventions or an intervention(s) not tailored to the barriers.2. We carried out heterogeneity analyses to investigate sources of differences in the effectiveness of interventions. These included the effects of: risk of bias, concealment of allocation, rigour of barrier analysis, use of theory, complexity of interventions, and the reported presence of administrative constraints. MAIN RESULTS:We included 26 studies comparing an intervention tailored to address identified barriers to change to no intervention or an intervention(s) not tailored to the barriers. The effect sizes of these studies varied both across and within studies.Twelve studies provided enough data to be included in the quantitative analysis. A meta-regression model was fitted adjusting for baseline odds by fitting it as a covariate, to obtain the pooled odds ratio of 1.54 (95% CI, 1.16 to 2.01) from Bayesian analysis and 1.52 (95% CI, 1.27 to 1.82, P < 0.001) from classical analysis. The heterogeneity analyses found that no study attributes investigated were significantly associated with effectiveness of the interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:Interventions tailored to prospectively identified barriers are more likely to improve professional practice than no intervention or dissemination of guidelines. However, the methods used to identify barriers and tailor interventions to address them need further development. Research is required to determine the effectiveness of tailored interventions in comparison with other interventions.

Project description:BackgroundCollaborative practice between community pharmacists and physicians is becoming increasingly common. Although tools and models to explore collaborative practice between both health care professionals have been developed, very few have been validated for their use in clinical practice. The objective of this study was to develop and validate a tool for measuring collaborative practice between community pharmacists and physicians from the perspective of community pharmacists.MethodsThe DeVellis method was used to develop and validate the Professional Collaborative Practice Tool. A pool of 40 items with Likert frequency scales was generated based on previous literature and expert opinion. This study was undertaken in Spain. A sample of community pharmacists providing medication reviews with follow-up and a random sample of pharmacists providing usual care were invited to participate. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis was used to assess the tool's reliability and content validity.ResultsThree hundred thirty-six pharmacists were invited with an overall response rate of 84.8%. The initial 40 items selected were reduced to 14 items. Exploratory Factor Analysis provided a 3-factor solution explaining 62% of the variance. Confirmatory Factor Analysis confirmed the three factors "Activation for collaborative professional practice," the "Integration in collaborative professional practice," and the "Professional acceptance in collaborative professional practice." The tool demonstrated an adequate fit (X2/df = 1.657, GFI = 0.889 and RMSEA = 0.069) and good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.924).ConclusionsThe Professional Collaborative Practice Tool has shown good internal reliability and criterion validity. The tool could be used to measure the perceived level of collaborative practice between community pharmacists and physicians and monitor changes over time. Its applicability and transferability to other settings should be evaluated.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Inter-professional education (IPE) builds inter-professional collaboration (IPC) attitude/skills of health professionals. This interventional IPE programme evaluates whether benchmarking sharing can successfully cultivate seed instructors responsible for improving their team members' IPC attitudes. DESIGN:Prospective, pre-post comparative cross-sectional pilot study. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS:Thirty four physicians, 30 nurses and 24 pharmacists, who volunteered to be trained as seed instructors participated in 3.5-hour preparation and 3.5-hour simulation courses. Then, participants (n=88) drew lots to decide 44 presenters, half of each profession, who needed to prepare IPC benchmarking and formed Group 1. The remaining participants formed Group 2 (regular). Facilitators rated the Group 1 participants' degree of appropriate transfer and sustainable practice of the learnt IPC skills in the workplace according to successful IPC examples in their benchmarking sharing. RESULTS:For the three professions, improvement in IPC attitude was identified by sequential increase in the post-course (second month, T2) and end-of-study (third month, T3) Interdisciplinary Education Perception Scale (IEPS) and Attitudes Towards Healthcare Teams Scale (ATHCTS) scores, compared with pre-course (first month, T1) scores. By IEPS and ATHCTS-based assessment, the degree of sequential improvements in IPC attitude was found to be higher among nurses and pharmacists than in physicians. In benchmarking sharing, the facilitators' agreement about the degree of participants'appropriate transfer and sustainable practice learnt 'communication and teamwork' skills in the workplace were significantly higher among pharmacists and nurses than among physicians. The post-intervention random sampling survey (sixth month, Tpost) found that the IPC attitude of the three professions improved after on-site IPC skill promotion by new programme-trained seed instructors within teams. CONCLUSIONS:Addition of benchmark sharing to a diamond-based IPE simulation programme enhances participants' IPC attitudes, self-reflection, workplace transfer and practice of the learnt skills. Furthermore, IPC promotion within teams by newly trained seed instructors improved the IPC attitudes across all three professions.