Dataset Information

Effect of implementation interventions on nurses' behaviour in clinical practice: a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Practitioner-level implementation interventions such as audit and feedback, communities of practice, and local opinion leaders have shown potential to change nurses' behaviour in clinical practice and improve patients' health. However, their effectiveness remains unclear. Moreover, we have a paucity of data regarding the use of theory in implementation studies with nurses, the causal processes-i.e. mechanisms of action-targeted by interventions to change nurses' behaviour in clinical practice, and the constituent components-i.e. behaviour change techniques-included in interventions. Thus, our objectives are threefold: (1) to examine the effectiveness of practitioner-level implementation interventions in changing nurses' behaviour in clinical practice; (2) to identify, in included studies, the type and degree of theory use, the mechanisms of action targeted by interventions and the behaviour change techniques constituting interventions and (3) to examine whether intervention effectiveness is associated with the use of theory or with specific mechanisms of action and behaviour change techniques.

Methods

We will conduct a systematic review based on the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) Group guidelines. We will search six databases (CINAHL, EMBASE, ERIC, PsycINFO, PubMed and Web of Science) with no time limitation for experimental and quasi-experimental studies that evaluated practitioner-level implementation interventions aiming to change nurses' behaviour in clinical practice. We will also hand-search reference lists of included studies. We will perform screening, full-text review, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction independently with the Covidence systematic review software. We will assess the quality of evidence using the GRADEpro software. We will code included studies independently for theory use (Theory Coding Scheme), mechanisms of action (coding guidelines from Michie) and behaviour change techniques (Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy v1) with QSR International's NVivo qualitative data analysis software. Meta-analyses will be performed using the Review Manager (RevMan) software. Meta-regression analyses will be performed with IBM SPSS Statistics software.

Discussion

This review will inform knowledge users and researchers interested in designing, developing and evaluating implementation interventions to support nurses' behaviour change in clinical practice. Results will provide key insights regarding which causal processes-i.e. mechanisms of action-should be targeted by these interventions, and which constituent components-i.e. behaviour change techniques-should be included in these interventions to increase their effectiveness.

Systematic review registration

The protocol has been registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; registration number: CRD42019130446).

SUBMITTER: Fontaine G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6896305 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effect of implementation interventions on nurses' behaviour in clinical practice: a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression protocol.

Fontaine Guillaume G Cossette Sylvie S Maheu-Cadotte Marc-André MA Deschênes Marie-France MF Rouleau Geneviève G Lavallée Andréane A Pépin Catherine C Ballard Ariane A Chicoine Gabrielle G Lapierre Alexandra A Lavoie Patrick P Blondin Jérémie J Mailhot Tanya T

Systematic reviews 20191205 1

<h4>Background</h4>Practitioner-level implementation interventions such as audit and feedback, communities of practice, and local opinion leaders have shown potential to change nurses' behaviour in clinical practice and improve patients' health. However, their effectiveness remains unclear. Moreover, we have a paucity of data regarding the use of theory in implementation studies with nurses, the causal processes-i.e. mechanisms of action-targeted by interventions to change nurses' behaviour in c ...[more]

PMID: 31806051

Similar Datasets

Project description:Osteoporosis is a global health issue among the aging population. The effect of the acid or base interventions on bone health remains controversial. This study performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate effects of acidic diets and alkaline supplements on bone health simultaneously. We conducted a comprehensive literature search in 5 available databases and 1 registered clinical trial system to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed effects of the acid-base intervention on bone health. Depending on heterogeneity across studies, the pooled effects were calculated by fixed-effects or random-effects models. The present study included 13 acidic diet intervention studies and 13 alkaline supplement studies for final quantitative assessments. The meta-analysis showed that acidic diets significantly increased net acid excretion [NAE; standardized mean difference (SMD) = 2.99; P = 0.003] and urinary calcium excretion (SMD = 0.47, P < 0.00001) but had no significant effect on bone turnover markers and bone mineral density (BMD). On the other hand, alkaline supplement intervention significantly reduced NAE (SMD = -1.29, P < 0.00001), urinary calcium excretion (SMD = -0.44, P = 0.007), bone resorption marker aminoterminal cross-linking telopeptide (NTX; SMD = -0.29, P = 0.003), and bone formation marker osteocalcin (OC; SMD = -0.23, P = 0.02), but did not affect the other bone turnover markers. Furthermore, alkaline supplements significantly increased BMD in femoral neck [mean difference (MD) = 1.62, P < 0.00001, I2 = 0%], lumbar spine (MD = 1.66, P < 0.00001, I2 = 87%), and total hip (MD = 0.98, P = 0.02, I2 = 99%). Subsequently, meta-regression analyses identified 1 study that substantially contributed to the high heterogeneity of BMD in the latter 2 sites, but sensitivity analysis suggested that this study did not affect the significant pooled effects. Despite that, the results should be interpreted with caution and need to be further validated by a larger RCT. In summary, through integrating evidence from RCTs, the present meta-analysis initially suggests that alkaline supplements may be beneficial to bone metabolism and acidic diets may not be harmful to bone health. This work may be clinically useful for both clinicians and patients with osteoporosis.

Project description:IntroductionPharmacists, as experts in medicines, are increasingly employed in general practices and undertake a range of responsibilities. Audit and feedback (A&F) interventions are effective in achieving behaviour change, including prescribing. The extent of pharmacist involvement in A&F interventions to influence prescribing is unknown. This review aimed to assess the effectiveness of A&F interventions involving pharmacists on prescribing in general practice compared with no A&F/usual care and to describe features of A&F interventions and pharmacist characteristics.MethodsElectronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, (Social) Science Citation Indexes, ISI Web of Science) were searched (2012, 2019, 2020). Cochrane systematic review methods were applied to trial identification, selection, and risk of bias. Results were summarized descriptively and heterogeneity was assessed. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted where studies were sufficiently homogenous in design and outcome.ResultsEleven cluster-randomized studies from 9 countries were included. Risk of bias across most domains was low. Interventions focussed on older patients, specific clinical area(s), or specific medications. Meta-analysis of 6 studies showed improved prescribing outcomes (pooled risk ratio: 0.78, 95% confidence interval: 0.64-0.94). Interventions including both verbal and written feedback or computerized decision support for prescribers were more effective. Pharmacists who received study-specific training, provided ongoing support to prescribers or reviewed prescribing for individual patients, contributed to more effective interventions.ConclusionsA&F interventions involving pharmacists can lead to small improvements in evidence-based prescribing in general practice settings. Future implementation of A&F within general practice should compare different ways of involving pharmacists to determine how to optimize effectiveness.PRISMA-compliant abstract included in Supplementary Material 1.

Project description:BackgroundDecreasing ineffective or harmful healthcare practices (de-implementation) may require different approaches than those used to promote uptake of effective practices (implementation). Few psychological theories differentiate between processes involved in decreasing, versus increasing, behaviour. However, it is unknown whether implementation and de-implementation interventions already use different approaches. We used the behaviour change technique (BCT) taxonomy (version 1) (which includes 93 BCTs organised into 12 groupings) to investigate whether implementation and de-implementation interventions for clinician behaviour change use different BCTs.MethodsIntervention descriptions in 181 articles from three systematic reviews in the Cochrane Library were coded for (a) implementation versus de-implementation and (b) intervention content (BCTs) using the BCT taxonomy (v1). BCT frequencies were calculated and compared using Pearson's chi-squared (χ2), Yates' continuity correction and Fisher's exact test, where appropriate. Identified BCTs were ranked according to frequency and rankings for de-implementation versus implementation interventions were compared and described.ResultsTwenty-nine and 25 BCTs were identified in implementation and de-implementation interventions respectively. Feedback on behaviour was identified more frequently in implementation than de-implementation (Χ2(2, n=178) = 15.693, p = .000057). Three BCTs were identified more frequently in de-implementation than implementation: Behaviour substitution (Χ2(2, n=178) = 14.561, p = .0001; Yates' continuity correction); Monitoring of behaviour by others without feedback (Χ2(2, n=178) = 16.187, p = .000057; Yates' continuity correction); and Restructuring social environment (p = .000273; Fisher's 2-sided exact test).ConclusionsThere were some significant differences between BCTs reported in implementation and de-implementation interventions suggesting that researchers may have implicit theories about different BCTs required for de-implementation and implementation. These findings do not imply that the BCTs identified as targeting implementation or de-implementation are effective, rather simply that they were more frequently used. These findings require replication for a wider range of clinical behaviours. The continued accumulation of additional knowledge and evidence into whether implementation and de-implementation is different will serve to better inform researchers and, subsequently, improve methods for intervention design.

Project description:BackgroundThe implementation of evidence-based practice (EBP) in daily health care practice is strongly encouraged; it is widely recognized as a means to improve the quality and safety of health care for patients and reduce avoidable costs. Primary care nurses and physiotherapists face numerous challenges in trying to ensure that they deliver effective daily care. Broadly promoted educational interventions aim to increase the integration and implementation of EBP in their daily practice.ObjectiveThis systematic review will retrieve and evaluate publications examining the effectiveness of educational interventions to increase the integration and implementation of EBP among nurses, nurse practitioners, and physiotherapists active in primary care.MethodsWe will conduct a systematic review of published articles in relevant professional, scientific journals (from their start dates) and in the following electronic databases, from inception until October 31, 2020: Medline Ovid SP (from 1946), PubMed (NOT Medline[sb]; from 1996), Embase.com (from 1947), CINAHL Ebesco (from 1937), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials Wiley (from 1992), PsycINFO Ovid SP (from 1806), Web of Science Core collection (from 1900), PEDro (from 1999), the JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports (from 1998), and the Trip Database (from 1997). We will use the predefined search terms of "evidence-based practice," "nurses," or "physiotherapists" and combinations with other terms, such as "educational interventions." We will also conduct a hand search of the bibliographies of all the relevant articles and a search for unpublished studies using Google Scholar, the ProQuest Dissertations and Theses dissemination, Mednar, WorldCat, OpenGrey, and Grey Literature Report. We will consider publications in English, French, German, and Portuguese.ResultsThe electronic database searches were completed in October 2020. Retrieved articles are currently being screened, and the entire study is expected to be completed by March 2021.ConclusionsThis systematic review will provide specific knowledge about the effectiveness of educational interventions to increase the implementation and integration of EBP in the daily practice of nurses and physiotherapists providing primary care services. Its findings will inform us about the types and frequencies of the most successful educational interventions.Trial registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42017077309; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=77309.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/17621.

Project description:IntroductionRaynaud's phenomenon (RP) describes excessive peripheral vasospasm to cold exposure and/or emotional stress. RP episodes are associated with digital colour changes, pain and reduced quality of life. Pharmacological interventions are of low to moderate efficacy and often result in adverse effects such as facial flushing and headaches. Recommended lifestyle and behavioural interventions have not been evaluated. The objectives of the proposed systematic review are to assess the comparative safety and efficacy of behaviour change interventions for RP and identify what we can learn to inform future interventions.Methods and analysisStudies eligible for inclusion include randomised controlled trials testing behaviour change interventions with a control comparator. A comprehensive search strategy will include peer review and grey literature up until 30 April 2017. Search databases will include Medline, Embase, PsychINFO and Cochrane. Initial sifting, eligibility, data extraction, risk of bias and quality assessment will be subject to review by two independent reviewers with a third reviewer resolving discrepancies. Risk of bias assessment will be performed using Cochrane risk of a bias assessment tool with quality of evidence assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation(GRADE). A meta-analysis will be performed if there are sufficient data. Two subgroup analyses are planned: primary versus secondary RP outcomes; comparison of theoretically informed interventions with pragmatic interventions.Ethics and disseminationThis review does not require ethical approval as it will summarise published studies with non-identifiable data. This protocol complies with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines. Findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed articles and reported according to PRISMA. This review will make a significant contribution to the management of RP where no review of behaviour-change interventions currently exist. The synopsis and protocol for the proposed systematic review is registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (registration number CRD42017049643).

Project description:BackgroundGlobal epidemiological data indicates that despite implementation of multiple interventions and significant financial investment, the HIV/AIDS epidemic remained inadequately controlled as of 2020. E-health presents a novel approach in delivering health information and health care and has gained popularity in HIV prevention worldwide. However, evidence on the effectiveness of e-health interventions on HIV prevention among diverse populations remains inadequate. Our study aims to systematically evaluate the effectiveness of varying e-health interventions on HIV prevention, with the objective of providing data support and guidance for the development of future e-health HIV intervention strategies.MethodsA systematic search of electronic English databases, including MEDLINE through PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science, along with three Chinese databases, including National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Wanfang Digital Periodicals (WANFANG), and Chinese Science and Technology Periodicals (VIP) database, will be conducted for the period of 1 January 1980 to 31 December 2022. Additionally, gray literature and unpublished trials in trial registers will be searched. Studies aimed at HIV prevention through e-health interventions, with full-text publications available in either English or Chinese, will be included. Study types will be limited to RCT, cluster RCT, and quasi-experiment study. The risk of bias in individual studies will be assessed following the guideline highlighted by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The outcomes will cover cognitive, behavioral, psychological, management, and biological measures of individuals involved in e-health interventions. The quality of evidence will be assessed by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Ultimately, a systematic review with meta-analysis will be conducted to compare the effectiveness of e-health interventions among diverse populations.DiscussionThis systematic review seeks to establish novel insights into the effectiveness of e-health interventions in diverse populations worldwide. It will inform the design and use of e-health interventions to optimize HIV-related strategies.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42022295909.

Dataset Information

Effect of implementation interventions on nurses' behaviour in clinical practice: a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression protocol.

Background

Methods

Discussion

Systematic review registration

Publications

Effect of implementation interventions on nurses' behaviour in clinical practice: a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression protocol.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets