Dataset Information

Process evaluations of primary care interventions addressing chronic disease: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Process evaluations (PEs) alongside randomised controlled trials of complex interventions are valuable because they address questions of for whom, how and why interventions had an impact. We synthesised the methods used in PEs of primary care interventions, and their main findings on implementation barriers and facilitators.

Design

Systematic review using the UK Medical Research Council guidance for PE as a guide.

Data sources

Academic databases (MEDLINE, SCOPUS, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EMBASE and Global Health) were searched from 1998 until June 2018.

Eligibility criteria

We included PE alongside randomised controlled trials of primary care interventions which aimed to improve outcomes for patients with non-communicable diseases.

Data extraction and synthesis

Two independent reviewers screened and conducted the data extraction and synthesis, with a third reviewer checking a sample for quality assurance.

Results

69 studies were included. There was an overall lack of consistency in how PEs were conducted and reported. The main weakness is that only 30 studies were underpinned by a clear intervention theory often facilitated by the use of existing theoretical frameworks. The main strengths were robust sampling strategies, and the triangulation of qualitative and quantitative data to understand an intervention's mechanisms. Findings were synthesised into three key themes: (1) a fundamental mismatch between what the intervention was designed to achieve and local needs; (2) the required roles and responsibilities of key actors were often not clearly understood; and (3) the health system context-factors such as governance, financing structures and workforce-if unanticipated could adversely impact implementation.

Conclusion

Greater consistency is needed in the reporting and the methods of PEs, in particular greater use of theoretical frameworks to inform intervention theory. More emphasis on formative research in designing interventions is needed to align the intervention with the needs of local stakeholders, and to minimise unanticipated consequences due to context-specific barriers.

Prospero registration number

CRD42016035572.

SUBMITTER: Liu H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6687007 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Process evaluations of primary care interventions addressing chronic disease: a systematic review.

Liu Hueiming H Mohammed Alim A Shanthosh Janani J News Madeline M Laba Tracey-Lea TL Hackett Maree L ML Peiris David D Jan Stephen S

BMJ open 20190806 8

<h4>Objective</h4>Process evaluations (PEs) alongside randomised controlled trials of complex interventions are valuable because they address questions of for whom, how and why interventions had an impact. We synthesised the methods used in PEs of primary care interventions, and their main findings on implementation barriers and facilitators.<h4>Design</h4>Systematic review using the UK Medical Research Council guidance for PE as a guide.<h4>Data sources</h4>Academic databases (MEDLINE, SCOPUS, ...[more]

PMID: 31391188

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPrimary and community care are key settings for the effective management of long term conditions. We aimed to evaluate the pattern of health outcomes in chronic disease management interventions for adults with physical health problems implemented in primary or community care settings.MethodsThe methods were based on our previous review published in 2006. We performed database searches for articles published from 2006 to 2014 and conducted a systematic review with narrative synthesis using the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care taxonomy to classify interventions and outcomes. The interventions were mapped to Chronic Care Model elements. The pattern of outcomes related to interventions was summarized by frequency of statistically significant improvements in health care provision and patient outcomes.ResultsA total of 9589 journal articles were retrieved from database searches and snowballing. After screening and verification, 165 articles that detailed 157 studies were included. There were few studies with Health Care Organization (1.9% of studies) or Community Resources (0.6% of studies) as the primary intervention element. Self-Management Support interventions (45.8% of studies) most frequently resulted in improvements in patient-level outcomes. Delivery System Design interventions (22.6% of studies) showed benefits in both professional and patient-level outcomes for a narrow range of conditions. Decision Support interventions (21.3% of studies) had impact limited to professional-level outcomes, in particular use of medications. The small number of studies of Clinical Information System interventions (8.9%) showed benefits for both professional- and patient-level outcomes.ConclusionsThe published literature has expanded substantially since 2006. This review confirms that Self-Management Support is the most frequent Chronic Care Model intervention that is associated with statistically significant improvements, predominately for diabetes and hypertension.

Project description:BackgroundComplex interventions in health care are characterized by multiple interacting components as well as by numerous nonlinear interactions with the social systems within which they are being implemented. The process of developing, evaluating and implementing complex interventions is therefore challenging. Established guidance such as the MRC (Medical Research Council) framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions refers to process evaluations as an integral part of the development of complex evidence-based interventions. Even though the need for process evaluations is recognized, the realization of such approaches is challenging because methodological instruction is sparse, and the phenomenon of interest is complex. A number of theoretical approaches indicating how to conduct process evaluations of complex interventions in health care exist, but a systematic and comprehensive overview of these is missing. Thus, the objective of the systematic scoping review described herein is to provide an overview and analysis of theoretical approaches suitable for the planning and conducting of process evaluations.MethodsThe design and conduct of this review will follow the procedures of a systematic scoping review. The search strategy will be developed following the BeHEMoTh (Behaviour of interest; Health context; Exclusions; Models or Theories) template which has been conceptualized for structured reviews of theory. The systematic search of the MEDLINE (via PubMed), CINAHL (via EBSCO) and PsycInfo (via EBSCO) electronic databases will be complemented by "hand searching" techniques. Study selection, data extraction, and data analysis will be performed by tandems of two researchers independently of each other. Divergent decisions and judgements between the two researchers will be discussed by the whole review team.DiscussionThe findings from this scoping review will provide an overview and comparison of theoretical approaches suitable for process evaluations of complex interventions in health care. The review results will support researchers in choosing the theoretical approach that best fits the respective focus of their process evaluation study.Systematic review registrationThis study has been registered with PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) under registration number CRD42020211732 .

Project description:BackgroundPrimary care providers manage the majority of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), although the most effective chronic disease management (CDM) strategies for these patients are unknown. We assessed the efficacy of CDM interventions used by primary care providers managing patients with CKD.MethodsThe Medline, Embase and Cochrane Central databases were systematically searched (inception to November 2014) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing education-based and computer-assisted CDM interventions targeting primary care providers managing patients with CKD in the community. The efficacy of CDM interventions was assessed using quality indicators [use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB), proteinuria measurement and achievement of blood pressure (BP) targets] and clinical outcomes (change in BP and glomerular filtration rate). Two independent reviewers evaluated studies for inclusion, quality and extracted data. Random effects models were used to estimate pooled odds ratios (ORs) and weighted mean differences for outcomes of interest.ResultsFive studies (188 clinics; 494 physicians; 42 852 patients with CKD) were included. Two studies compared computer-assisted intervention strategies with usual care, two studies compared education-based intervention strategies with computer-assisted intervention strategies and one study compared both these intervention strategies with usual care. Compared with usual care, computer-assisted CDM interventions did not increase the likelihood of ACEI/ARB use among patients with CKD {pooled OR 1.00 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83-1.21]; I2 = 0.0%}. Similarly, education-related CDM interventions did not increase the likelihood of ACEI/ARB use compared with computer-assisted CDM interventions [pooled OR 1.12 (95% CI 0.77-1.64); I2 = 0.0%]. Inconsistencies in reporting methods limited further pooling of data.ConclusionsTo date, there have been very few randomized trials testing CDM interventions targeting primary care providers with the goal of improving care of people with CKD. Those conducted to date have shown minimal impact, suggesting that other strategies, or multifaceted interventions, may be required to enhance care for patients with CKD in the community.

Project description:Introduction: Health is impacted by a wide range of nonmedical factors, collectively termed the social determinants of health (SDoH). As the mechanisms by which these factors influence wellness and disease continue to be uncovered, health systems are beginning to assess their roles in addressing patient's social needs. This study seeks to identify and analyze clinic-based interventions aimed at addressing patients' social needs in perinatal care, including prenatal, antepartum, and postpartum care. Methods: We conducted a search of six databases through May 2020 for articles describing screening or intervention activities addressing social needs in at least one SDoH domain as defined by Healthy People 2020. We required that studies include pregnant or postpartum women and be based in a clinical setting. Results: Thirty-one publications describing 26 unique studies were identified. Most studies were either randomized-controlled trials (n=10) or observational studies (n=7) and study settings were both public and private. The mean age of women ranged from 17.4 to 34.1 years. Most studies addressed intimate partner violence (n=19). The next most common need addressed was social support (n=5), followed by food insecurity (n=3), and housing (n=2). Types of interventions varied from simple screening to ongoing counseling and case management. There was wide heterogeneity in outcomes investigated. Most IPV interventions that included counseling or ongoing support resulted in reduced IPV recurrence and severity. No intervention with only screening showed a reduction in rate of IPV. Conclusion: This systematic review shines light on several avenues to support pregnant and postpartum women through interventions that embed acknowledgment of social needs and actions addressing these needs into the clinical environment. The results of this review suggest that interventions with counseling or ongoing support may show promise in alleviating social risk factors and improving some clinical outcomes. However, the strength of this evidence is limited by the paucity of studies. More rigorous research is imperative to augment the knowledge of social needs interventions, especially in domains outside of IPV.

Project description:BackgroundNormalization Process Theory (NPT) identifies, characterises and explains key mechanisms that promote and inhibit the implementation, embedding and integration of new health techniques, technologies and other complex interventions. A large body of literature that employs NPT to inform feasibility studies and process evaluations of complex healthcare interventions has now emerged. The aims of this review were to review this literature; to identify and characterise the uses and limits of NPT in research on the implementation and integration of healthcare interventions; and to explore NPT's contribution to understanding the dynamics of these processes.MethodsA qualitative systematic review was conducted. We searched Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar for articles with empirical data in peer-reviewed journals that cited either key papers presenting and developing NPT, or the NPT Online Toolkit ( www.normalizationprocess.org ). We included in the review only articles that used NPT as the primary approach to collection, analysis or reporting of data in studies of the implementation of healthcare techniques, technologies or other interventions. A structured data extraction instrument was used, and data were analysed qualitatively.ResultsSearches revealed 3322 citations. We show that after eliminating 2337 duplicates and broken or junk URLs, 985 were screened as titles and abstracts. Of these, 101 were excluded because they did not fit the inclusion criteria for the review. This left 884 articles for full-text screening. Of these, 754 did not fit the inclusion criteria for the review. This left 130 papers presenting results from 108 identifiable studies to be included in the review. NPT appears to provide researchers and practitioners with a conceptual vocabulary for rigorous studies of implementation processes. It identifies, characterises and explains empirically identifiable mechanisms that motivate and shape implementation processes. Taken together, these mean that analyses using NPT can effectively assist in the explanation of the success or failure of specific implementation projects. Ten percent of papers included critiques of some aspect of NPT, with those that did mainly focusing on its terminology. However, two studies critiqued NPT emphasis on agency, and one study critiqued NPT for its normative focus.ConclusionsThis review demonstrates that researchers found NPT useful and applied it across a wide range of interventions. It has been effectively used to aid intervention development and implementation planning as well as evaluating and understanding implementation processes themselves. In particular, NPT appears to have offered a valuable set of conceptual tools to aid understanding of implementation as a dynamic process.

Project description:ObjectivesTo systematically review and synthesise findings from process evaluations of interventions in trials which measured sedentary behaviour as an outcome in adults to explore: (1) how intervention content, implementation, mechanisms of impact and context influence outcomes and (2) how these interventions are experienced from different perspectives (participants, carers, staff).DesignSystematic review and narrative synthesis underpinned by the Medical Research Council process evaluation framework.Data sourcesDatabases searches were conducted in March 2019 then updated in May 2020 and October 2021 in: CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, AMED; EMBASE, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Web of Science and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses.Eligibility criteriaWe included: Process evaluations of trials including interventions where sedentary behaviour was measured as an outcome in adults aged 16 or over from clinical or non-clinical populations. We excluded studies if interventions were delivered in educational or workplace settings, or if they were laboratory studies focused on immediate effects of breaking sitting.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers extracted and coded data into a framework and assessed the quality of studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. We synthesised findings using a narrative approach.Results17 process evaluations were included. Five interventions focused on reducing sedentary behaviour or sitting time, 12 aimed to increase physical activity or promote healthier lifestyles. Process evaluations indicated changes in sedentary behaviour outcomes were shaped by numerous factors including: barriers (eg, staffing difficulties and scheduling problems) and facilitators (eg, allowing for flexibility) to intervention delivery; contextual factors (eg, usual lifestyle and religious events) and individual factors (eg, pain, tiredness, illness, age and individual preferences).DiscussionIntervention requires careful consideration of different factors that could influence changes in sedentary behaviour outcomes to ensure that interventions can be tailored to suit different individuals and groups.Prospero registration numberCRD42018087403.

Project description:Torture survivors experience chronic, somatic pain that may be exacerbated by environmental, social, and structural factors that extend beyond immediate traumatic events and diagnoses. We conducted a systematic review of research describing the types and efficacy of treatments for chronic somatic pain in a global population of torture survivors. In this systematic review, we searched Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE (1974 to present), and PubMed. We used all appropriate controlled vocabulary and keywords for interventions and treatments for chronic somatic pain in torture survivors. The population included survivors of torture of any age and in any country. Outcomes included pain relief, pain intensity, distress level, and quality of life. Four authors participated in screening, full-text review, and quality assessment, with each title and abstract being independently reviewed by two authors. This study is reported according to the PRISMA guidelines and registered in PROSPERO. We included six pre-post intervention studies and four pilot or modified randomized controlled trials (RCTs), for a total of ten studies included in the analysis. Different combinations of interventions targeted pain reduction in refugees, the majority of whom were torture survivors as the primary (n = 1) or secondary (n = 9) outcome. Sample sizes varied from eight to 470 participants. We identified three main types of interventions: multimodal combined, manual therapy, and specific types of talk therapy. Five studies demonstrated positive outcomes on pain and its intensity, three reported no effect, and two had mixed outcomes. Pain in torture survivors is often considered a symptom secondary to mental health illness and not targeted directly. Instead, combined interventions are mainly directed at posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety. Most studies noted promising preliminary results and plans to conduct RCTs to increase the reproducibility and quality of their pilot data.

Dataset Information

Process evaluations of primary care interventions addressing chronic disease: a systematic review.

Objective

Design

Data sources

Eligibility criteria

Data extraction and synthesis

Results

Conclusion

Prospero registration number

Publications

Process evaluations of primary care interventions addressing chronic disease: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets