Dataset Information

Fostering Appropriate Antibiotic Use in a Complex Intervention: Mixed-Methods Process Evaluation Alongside the Cluster-Randomized Trial ARena.

ABSTRACT: The cluster randomized trial ARena (sustainable reduction of antibiotic-induced antimicrobial resistance, 2017-2020) promoted appropriate use of antibiotics for acute non-complicated infections in primary care networks (PCNs) in Germany. A process evaluation assessed determinants of practice and explored factors associated with antibiotic prescribing patterns. This work describes its findings on uptake and impacts of the complex intervention program and indicates potential implementation into routine care. In a nested mixed-methods approach, a three-wave study-specific survey for participating physicians and medical assistants assessed potential impacts and uptake of the complex intervention program. Stakeholders received a one-time online questionnaire to reflect on network-related aspects. Semi-structured, open-ended interviews, with a purposive sample of physicians, medical assistants and stakeholders, explored program component acceptance for daily practice and perceived sustainability of intervention component effects. Intervention components were perceived to be smoothly integrable into practice routines. The highest uptake was reported for educational components: feedback reports, background information, e-learning modules and disease-specific quality circles (QCs). Participation in PCNs was seen as the motivational factor for guideline-oriented patient care and adoption of new routines. Future approaches to fostering appropriate antibiotics use by targeting health literacy competencies and clinician's therapy decisions should combine evidence-based information sources, audit and feedback reports and QCs.

SUBMITTER: Poss-Doering R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7764260 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Fostering Appropriate Antibiotic Use in a Complex Intervention: Mixed-Methods Process Evaluation Alongside the Cluster-Randomized Trial ARena.

Poss-Doering Regina R Kühn Lukas L Kamradt Martina M Stürmlinger Anna A Glassen Katharina K Andres Edith E Kaufmann-Kolle Petra P Wambach Veit V Bader Lutz L Szecsenyi Joachim J Wensing Michel M

Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) 20201208 12

The cluster randomized trial ARena (sustainable reduction of antibiotic-induced antimicrobial resistance, 2017-2020) promoted appropriate use of antibiotics for acute non-complicated infections in primary care networks (PCNs) in Germany. A process evaluation assessed determinants of practice and explored factors associated with antibiotic prescribing patterns. This work describes its findings on uptake and impacts of the complex intervention program and indicates potential implementation into ro ...[more]

PMID: 33302559

Similar Datasets

Project description:Antipsychotic medications are routinely prescribed in nursing homes to address the behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia. Unfortunately, inappropriate prescribing of antipsychotic medications is common and associated with increased morbidity, adverse drug events, and hospitalizations. Multifaceted interventions can achieve a 12-20 % reduction in antipsychotic prescribing levels in nursing homes. Effective interventions have featured educational outreach and ongoing performance feedback.This pragmatic, cluster-randomized control trial and embedded process evaluation seeks to determine the effect of adding academic detailing to audit and feedback on prescribing of antipsychotic medications in nursing homes, compared with audit and feedback alone. Nursing homes within pre-determined regions of Ontario, Canada, are eligible if they express an interest in the intervention. The academic detailing intervention will be delivered by registered health professionals following an intensive training program including relevant clinical issues and techniques to support health professional behavior change. Physicians in both groups will have the opportunity to access confidential reports summarizing their prescribing patterns for antipsychotics in comparison to the local and provincial average. Participating homes will be allocated to one of the two arms of the study (active/full intervention versus standard audit and feedback) in two waves, with a 2:1 allocation ratio. Homes will be randomized after stratifying for geography, baseline antipsychotic prescription rates, and size, to ensure a balance of characteristics. The primary outcome is antipsychotic dispensing in nursing homes, measured 6 months after allocation; secondary outcomes include clinical outcomes and healthcare utilization.Policy-makers and the public have taken note that antipsychotics are used in nursing homes in Ontario far more than other jurisdictions. Academic detailing can be an effective technique to address challenges in appropriate prescribing in nursing homes, but effect sizes vary widely. This opportunistic, policy-driven evaluation, embedded within a government-initiated demonstration project, was designed to ensure policy-makers receive the best evidence possible regarding whether and how to scale up the intervention.ClinicalTrials.gov NLM Identifier: NCT02604056 .

Project description:ObjectivesTo assess the acceptability and feasibility of using a theory-based electronic learning intervention designed to support appropriate antibiotic prescribing by nurse and pharmacist independent prescribers for patients presenting with common, acute, uncomplicated self-limiting respiratory tract infections (RTIs).DesignExperimental with mixed methods; preintervention and postintervention online surveys and semistructured interviews.SettingPrimary care settings across the UK.Participants11 nurse and 4 pharmacist prescribers.InterventionA theory-based brief interactive animation electronic learning activity comprised a consultation scenario by a prescriber with an adult presenting with a common, acute, uncomplicated self-limiting RTI to support a 'no antibiotic prescribing strategy'.Outcome measuresRecruitment, response and attrition rates were assessed. The overall usefulness of the intervention was assessed by analysing prescribers' self-reported confidence and knowledge in treating patients with RTIs before and after undertaking the intervention, and views on the relevance of the intervention to their work. Acceptability of the intervention was assessed in semistructured interviews. The feasibility of data collection methods was assessed by recording the number of study components completed by prescribers.Results15 prescribers (maximum sample size) consented and completed all four stages of the study. Prescribers reported high to very high levels of confidence and knowledge preintervention and postintervention, with slight postintervention increases in communicating with patients and a slight reduction in building rapport. Qualitative findings supported quantitative findings; prescribers were reassured of their own practice which in turn increased their confidence and knowledge in consultations. The information in the intervention was not new to prescribers but was applicable and useful to consolidate learning and enable self-reflection. Completing the e-learning intervention was acceptable to prescribers.ConclusionsIt was feasible to conduct the study. The intervention was acceptable and useful to prescribers. Future work will add complex clinical content in the intervention before conducting a full trial.

Project description:ObjectivesParent carers of children with special educational needs or disability are at risk of poorer mental and physical health. In response to these needs, we codeveloped the 'Healthy Parent Carers' (HPC) programme. This study examined the views and experiences of participants in the HPC feasibility trial to inform programme refinement.Intervention, setting and participantsHPC is a peer-led group-based intervention (supported by online materials) for primary carers of disabled children, encouraging behaviours linked with health and well-being. It was delivered by two lead and six assistant peer facilitators in six community sites (one lead and one assistant per group) in South West England over six or 12 sessions. Control participants had online materials only. The trial involved 47 intervention and 45 control parent carers (97% female and 97% white) and eight facilitators (one male).DesignA preplanned mixed methods process evaluation using questionnaires and checklists (during and after the intervention), qualitative interviews with participants after intervention (n=18) and a focus group with facilitators after trial.ResultsHPC was highly acceptable to participants and facilitators and experiences were very positive. Participants reported that the programme increased awareness of what parent carers could and could not change and their self-efficacy to engage in health-promoting behaviours. The intended mechanisms of action (social identification and peer support) matched participants' expectations and experiences. Control participants found the online-only programme flexible but isolating, as there were no opportunities to share ideas and problem solve with peers, the key function of the programme. Areas for improvement were identified for programme content, facilitator training and delivery.ConclusionHPC was acceptable, well received and offers considerable potential to improve the health of parent carers. Under the pandemic, the challenge going forward is how best to maintain reach and fidelity to function while delivering a more virtual programme.Trial registration numberISRCTN151144652.

Project description:To describe the implementation of an enhanced rehabilitation programme for elderly hip fracture patients with mental capacity, in a randomised feasibility study compared with usual rehabilitation. To compare processes between the two and to collect the views of patients, carers and therapy staff about trial participation.Mixed methods process evaluation in a randomised feasibility study.Patient participants were recruited on orthopaedic and rehabilitation wards; the intervention was delivered in the community following hospital discharge.Sixty-one older adults (aged ?65 years) recovering from surgical treatment (replacement arthroplasty or internal fixation) following hip fracture, who were living independently prior to fracture and had mental capacity and 31 of their carers.Usual care (control) or usual care plus an enhanced rehabilitation package (intervention). The enhanced rehabilitation consisted of a patient-held information workbook, goal-setting diary and up to six additional therapy sessions.Recruitment of sites and rehabilitation teams, response of rehabilitation teams, recruitment and reach in patient and carer participants, intervention delivery, delivery to individuals, response of individual patients to the enhanced intervention or usual rehabilitation, response of carer participants, unintended consequences and testing intervention theory and context.Usual rehabilitation care was very variable. The enhanced rehabilitation group received a mean of five additional therapy sessions. All of the returned goal-setting diaries had inputs from the therapy team, and half had written comments by the patients and carers. Focus group themes: variation of usual care and its impact on delivering the intervention; the importance of goal setting; the role of the therapist in providing reassurance about safe physical activities; and acceptability of the extra therapy sessions.Lessons learnt for a future definitive RCT include how to enhance recruitment and improve training materials, the workbook, delivery of the extra therapy sessions and recording of usual rehabilitation care.ISRCTN22464643; Post- results.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Long-term recovery takes longer than expected despite improved surgical techniques and Enhanced Recovery After Surgery programs. An electronic health (eHealth) care program ("ikherstel") was developed to partially substitute perioperative care for patients undergoing colorectal surgical procedures. Successfully tested eHealth programs are not always implemented in usual care, and it is, therefore, important to evaluate the process to optimize future implementation. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the eHealth intervention was executed as planned. METHODS:A mixed-methods process evaluation was carried out alongside a multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT). This evaluation was performed using the Linnan and Steckler framework for the quantitative part of this study, measuring the components reach, dose delivered, dose received, fidelity, and participants' attitudes. Total implementation scores were calculated using the averaging approach, in which the sum of all data points is divided by the number of data points and the total adherence to the protocol is measured. For the qualitative part, the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology framework was used. The quantitative data were based on participants' questionnaires, a logistic database, a weblog, and participants' medical files and were obtained by performing semistructured interviews with participants of the RCT. RESULTS:A total of 151 participants of 340 eligible patients were included in the RCT, of which 73 participants were allocated to the intervention group. On the basis of the quantitative process data, total implementation scores for the website, mobile app, electronic consult, and activity tracker were 64%, 63%, 44%, and 67%, respectively. Participants in the qualitative part experienced the program as supportive and provided guidance on their recovery process after colorectal surgery. Most frequently mentioned barriers were the limited interaction with and feedback from health care professionals and the lack of tailoring of the convalescence plan in case of a different course of recovery. CONCLUSIONS:The intervention needs more interaction with and feedback from health care professionals and needs more tailored guidance in case of different recovery or treatment courses. To ensure a successful implementation of the program in daily practice, some adjustments are required to optimize the program in a blended care form. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Netherlands Trial Registry NTR5686; http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC= 5686 (Archieved by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/75LrJaHrr).

Project description:BackgroundBronchiolitis is the most common reason for hospitalisation in infants. All international bronchiolitis guidelines recommend supportive care, yet considerable variation in practice continues with infants receiving non-evidence based therapies. We developed six targeted, theory-informed interventions; clinical leads, stakeholder meeting, train-the-trainer, education delivery, other educational materials, and audit and feedback. A cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) found the interventions to be effective in reducing use of five non-evidence based therapies in infants with bronchiolitis. This process evaluation paper aims to determine whether the interventions were implemented as planned (fidelity), explore end-users' perceptions of the interventions and evaluate cRCT outcome data with intervention fidelity data.MethodsA pre-specified mixed-methods process evaluation was conducted alongside the cRCT, guided by frameworks for process evaluation of cRCTs and complex interventions. Quantitative data on the fidelity, dose and reach of interventions were collected from the 13 intervention hospitals during the study and analysed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data identifying perception and acceptability of interventions were collected from 42 intervention hospital clinical leads on study completion and analysed using thematic analysis.ResultsThe cRCT found targeted, theory-informed interventions improved bronchiolitis management by 14.1%. The process evaluation data found variability in how the intervention was delivered at the cluster and individual level. Total fidelity scores ranged from 55 to 98% across intervention hospitals (mean = 78%; SD = 13%). Fidelity scores were highest for use of clinical leads (mean = 98%; SD = 7%), and lowest for use of other educational materials (mean = 65%; SD = 19%) and audit and feedback (mean = 65%; SD = 20%). Clinical leads reflected positively about the interventions, with time constraints being the greatest barrier to their use.ConclusionOur targeted, theory-informed interventions were delivered with moderate fidelity, and were well received by clinical leads. Despite clinical leads experiencing challenges of time constraints, the level of fidelity had a positive effect on successfully de-implementing non-evidence-based care in infants with bronchiolitis. These findings will inform widespread rollout of our bronchiolitis interventions, and guide future practice change in acute care settings.Trial registrationAustralian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12616001567415 .

Project description:BackgroundA high proportion of hypertensive patients remain above the target threshold for blood pressure, increasing the risk of adverse health outcomes. A digital intervention to facilitate healthcare practitioners (hereafter practitioners) to initiate planned medication escalations when patients' home readings were raised was found to be effective in lowering blood pressure over 12 months. This mixed-methods process evaluation aimed to develop a detailed understanding of how the intervention was implemented in Primary Care, possible mechanisms of action and contextual factors influencing implementation.MethodsOne hundred twenty-five practitioners took part in a randomised controlled trial, including GPs, practice nurses, nurse-prescribers, and healthcare assistants. Usage data were collected automatically by the digital intervention and antihypertensive medication changes were recorded from the patients' medical notes. A sub-sample of 27 practitioners took part in semi-structured qualitative process interviews. The qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis and the quantitative data using descriptive statistics and correlations to explore factors related to adherence. The two sets of findings were integrated using a triangulation protocol.ResultsMean practitioner adherence to escalating medication was moderate (53%), and the qualitative analysis suggested that low trust in home readings and the decision to wait for more evidence influenced implementation for some practitioners. The logic model was partially supported in that self-efficacy was related to adherence to medication escalation, but qualitative findings provided further insight into additional potential mechanisms, including perceived necessity and concerns. Contextual factors influencing implementation included proximity of average readings to the target threshold. Meanwhile, adherence to delivering remote support was mixed, and practitioners described some uncertainty when they received no response from patients.ConclusionsThis mixed-methods process evaluation provided novel insights into practitioners' decision-making around escalating medication using a digital algorithm. Implementation strategies were proposed which could benefit digital interventions in addressing clinical inertia, including facilitating tracking of patients' readings over time to provide stronger evidence for medication escalation, and allowing more flexibility in decision-making whilst discouraging clinical inertia due to borderline readings. Implementation of one-way notification systems could be facilitated by enabling patients to send a brief acknowledgement response.Trial registration( ISRCTN13790648 ). Registered 14 May 2015.

Project description:BackgroundPlants for Joints (PFJ) is a multidisciplinary intervention centered around a whole-food plant-based diet, physical activity, and sleep and stress management. The PFJ intervention successfully improved disease activity and symptoms in people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or osteoarthritis (OA), respectively, and metabolic health. To investigate how these effects were achieved a mixed methods process evaluation was conducted to understand the context, implementation, and mechanism of impact of the PFJ intervention. Also, the relationship between degree of implementation and lifestyle changes was explored.MethodsQuantitative and qualitative data were collected across the evaluation domains context (i.e. reach), implementation (i.e. recruitment and delivery), and mechanism of impact (i.e. responsiveness) of both the participants and coaches (incl. dietitians, sport coaches) according to the UK MRC guidelines for process evaluations. Data was collected from the participants via focus groups and questionnaires after the intervention, and interviews with coaches. Qualitative data were analyzed thematically, and quantitative data were assessed with descriptive statistics and linear regression analyses. Degree of implementation was quantified using a theory-driven implementation index score composed of different process evaluation constructs.ResultsOf the 155 participants who participated in the PFJ intervention, 106 (68%) took part in the questionnaire and 34 (22%) attended a focus group. Participants felt the intervention was complete, coherent, and would recommend the intervention to others (mean score 9.2 (SD 1.4) out of 10). Participants felt heard and empowered to take control of their lifestyle and health outcomes. Components perceived as most useful were self-monitoring, social support, practical and theoretical information, and (individual) guidance by the multidisciplinary team. Participants perceived the intervention as feasible, and many indicated it effectively improved their health outcomes. In an explorative analysis there was no significant difference in healthy lifestyle changes across implementation index score groups.ConclusionThis process evaluation offers important insights into why the PFJ intervention works and how the intervention can be optimized for future implementation. Results indicating the intervention's high satisfaction, feasibility, and perceived effectiveness, further support the use of plant-based lifestyle interventions as an additional treatment option for patients with RA, OA, or other chronic diseases.Trial registrationInternational Clinical Trial Registry Platform numbers: NL7800, NL7801, and NL7802, all registered 17-06-2019.

Dataset Information

Fostering Appropriate Antibiotic Use in a Complex Intervention: Mixed-Methods Process Evaluation Alongside the Cluster-Randomized Trial ARena.

Publications

Fostering Appropriate Antibiotic Use in a Complex Intervention: Mixed-Methods Process Evaluation Alongside the Cluster-Randomized Trial ARena.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets