A Systematic Review of External Validity in Pediatric Integrated Primary Care Trials.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
We used the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance) framework to conduct a systematic review of external validity reporting in integrated primary care (IPC) interventions for mental health concerns.Methods
We searched Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Center Register of Controlled Trials, and relevant literature to identify publications from 1998 to 2018 reporting on open, randomized, or quasi-randomized trials of IPC interventions that targeted child (ages 0-18 years) psychological symptoms. For each publication, we extracted the information reported in each RE-AIM domain and calculated the proportion of the total studies reviewed.Results
Thirty-nine publications describing 25 studies were included in the review. Publications rarely reported some indicators of external validity, including the representativeness of participants (12%), rate of adoption clinics or providers (16%), cost of implementation (8%), or evidence of maintenance (16%). Few studies reported on key pragmatic factors such as cost or organizational change processes related to implementation and maintenance. Strengths of some studies included comparisons of multiple active treatments, use of tailorable interventions, and implementation in "real world" settings.Conclusions
Although IPC interventions appear efficacious under research conditions, there are significant knowledge gaps regarding the degree to which they reach and engage target recipients, what factors impact adoption and implementation of IPC interventions by clinicians, how fidelity can be maintained over time, and cost-effectiveness. Pediatric IPC researchers should embrace dissemination and implementation science methods to balance internal and external validity concerns moving forward.
SUBMITTER: Callejo-Black A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8202128 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesTo assess aspects of the internal validity of recently published cluster randomised trials and explore the reporting of information useful in assessing the external validity of these trials.DesignReview of 34 cluster randomised trials in primary care published in 2004 and 2005 in seven journals (British Medical Journal, British Journal of General Practice, Family Practice, Preventive Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, Journal of General Internal Medicine, Pediatrics).Data sourcesNational Library of Medicine (Medline) via PubMed.Data extractionTo assess aspects of internal validity we extracted data on appropriateness of sample size calculations and analyses, methods of identifying and recruiting individual participants, and blinding. To explore reporting of information useful in assessing external validity we extracted data on cluster eligibility, cluster inclusion and retention, cluster generalisability, and the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention to health providers in clusters.Results21 (62%) trials accounted for clustering in sample size calculations and 30 (88%) in the analysis; about a quarter were potentially biased because of procedures surrounding recruitment and identification of patients; individual participants were blind to allocation status in 19 (56%) and outcome assessors were blind in 15 (44%). In almost half the reports, information relating to generalisability of clusters was poorly reported, and in two fifths there was no information about the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention.ConclusionsCluster randomised trials are essential for evaluating certain types of interventions. Issues affecting their internal validity, such as appropriate sample size calculations and analysis, have been widely disseminated and are now better addressed by researchers. Blinding of those identifying and recruiting patients to allocation status is recommended but is not always carried out. There may be fewer barriers to internal validity in trials in which individual participants are not recruited. External validity seems poorly addressed in many trials, yet is arguably as important as internal validity in judging quality as a basis for healthcare intervention.
| S-EPMC2323095 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTo critically assess the external validity of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) it is important to know what older adults have been enrolled in the trials. The aim of this systematic review is to study what proportion of trials specifically designed for older patients report on somatic status, physical and mental functioning, social environment and frailty in the patient characteristics.MethodsPubMed was searched for articles published in 2012 and only RCTs were included. Articles were further excluded if not conducted with humans or only secondary analyses were reported. A random sample of 10% was drawn. The current review analyzed this random sample and further selected trials when the reported mean age was ≥ 60 years. We extracted geriatric assessments from the population descriptives or the in- and exclusion criteria.ResultsIn total 1396 trials were analyzed and 300 trials included. The median of the reported mean age was 66 (IQR 63-70) and the median percentage of men in the trials was 60 (IQR 45-72). In 34% of the RCTs specifically designed for older patients somatic status, physical and mental functioning, social environment or frailty were reported in the population descriptives or the in- and exclusion criteria. Physical and mental functioning was reported most frequently (22% and 14%). When selecting RCTs on a mean age of 70 or 80 years the report of geriatric assessments in the patient characteristics was 46% and 85% respectively but represent only 5% and 1% of the trials.ConclusionSomatic status, physical and mental functioning, social environment and frailty are underreported even in RCTs specifically designed for older patients published in 2012. Therefore, it is unclear for clinicians to which older patients the results can be applied. We recommend systematic to transparently report these relevant characteristics of older participants included in RCTs.
| S-EPMC5367677 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Controlled clinical trials of health care interventions are either explanatory or pragmatic. Explanatory trials test whether an intervention is efficacious; that is, whether it can have a beneficial effect in an ideal situation. Pragmatic trials measure effectiveness; they measure the degree of beneficial effect in real clinical practice. In pragmatic trials, a balance between external validity (generalizability of the results) and internal validity (reliability or accuracy of the results) needs to be achieved. The explanatory trial seeks to maximize the internal validity by assuring rigorous control of all variables other than the intervention. The pragmatic trial seeks to maximize external validity to ensure that the results can be generalized. However the danger of pragmatic trials is that internal validity may be overly compromised in the effort to ensure generalizability. We are conducting two pragmatic randomized controlled trials on interventions in the management of hypertension in primary care. We describe the design of the trials and the steps taken to deal with the competing demands of external and internal validity. DISCUSSION: External validity is maximized by having few exclusion criteria and by allowing flexibility in the interpretation of the intervention and in management decisions. Internal validity is maximized by decreasing contamination bias through cluster randomization, and decreasing observer and assessment bias, in these non-blinded trials, through baseline data collection prior to randomization, automating the outcomes assessment with 24 hour ambulatory blood pressure monitors, and blinding the data analysis. SUMMARY: Clinical trials conducted in community practices present investigators with difficult methodological choices related to maintaining a balance between internal validity (reliability of the results) and external validity (generalizability). The attempt to achieve methodological purity can result in clinically meaningless results, while attempting to achieve full generalizability can result in invalid and unreliable results. Achieving a creative tension between the two is crucial.
| S-EPMC317298 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLeaders are needed to address healthcare changes essential for implementation of integrated primary care. What kind of leadership this needs, which professionals should fulfil this role and how these leaders can be supported remains unclear.ObjectivesTo review the literature on the effectiveness of programmes to support leadership, the relationship between clinical leadership and integrated primary care, and important leadership skills for integrated primary care practice.MethodsWe systematically searched PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO until June 2018 for empirical studies situated in an integrated primarycare setting, regarding clinical leadership, leadership skills, support programmes and integrated-care models. Two researchers independently selected relevant studies and critically appraised studies on methodological quality, summarized data and mapped qualitative data on leadership skills.ResultsOf the 3207 articles identified, 56 were selected based on abstract and title, from which 20 met the inclusion criteria. Selected papers were of mediocre quality. Two non-controlled studies suggested that leadership support programmes helped prepare and guide leaders and positively contributed to implementation of integrated primary care. There was little support that leaders positively influence implementation of integrated care. Leaders' relational and organizational skills as well as process-management and change-management skills were considered important to improve care integration. Physicians seemed to be the most adequate leaders.ConclusionGood quality research on clinical leadership in integrated primary care is scarce. More profound knowledge is needed about leadership skills, required for integrated-care implementation, and leadership support aimed at developing these skills.
| S-EPMC6394325 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Universal mental health screening in pediatric primary care is recommended, but studies report slow uptake and low rates of patient follow-through after referral to specialized services. This review examined possible explanations related to the process of screening, focusing on how parents and youth are engaged, and how providers evaluate and use screening results.A narrative synthesis was developed after a systematic review of 3 databases (plus follow-up of citations, expert recommendations, and checks for multiple publications about the same study). Searching identified 1,188 titles, and of these, 186 full-text articles were reviewed. Two authors extracted data from 45 articles meeting inclusion criteria.Published studies report few details about how mental health screens were administered, including how clinicians explain their purpose or confidentiality, or whether help was provided for language, literacy, or disability problems. Although they were not addressed directly in the studies reviewed, uptake and detection rates appeared to vary with means of administration. Screening framed as universal, confidential, and intended to optimize attention to patient concerns increased acceptability. Studies said little about how providers were taught to explore screen results. Screening increased referrals, but many still followed negative screens, in some cases because of parent concerns apparently not reflected by screen results but possibly stemming from screen-prompted discussions.Little research has addressed the process of engaging patients in mental health screening in pediatric primary care or how clinicians can best use screening results. The literature does offer suggestions for better clinical practice and research that may lead to improvements in uptake and outcome.
| S-EPMC3942871 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction:Although substantial generic knowledge about integrated care has been developed, better understanding of the factors that drive behaviour, decision-making, collaboration and governance processes in integrated care networks is needed to take integrated care forward. To gain more insight into these topics and to understand integrated care in more depth, a set of underlying values of integrated care has been developed and defined in this study. Theory and methods:A systematic literature review was conducted to identify the underlying values of integrated care. Values theory was used as a theoretical framework for the analysis. Results:This study identified 23 values in the current body of knowledge. The most frequently identified values are 'collaborative', 'co-ordinated', 'transparent', 'empowering', 'comprehensive', 'co-produced' and 'shared responsibility and accountability'. Discussion and conclusion:The set of values is presented as a potential basis for a values-driven approach to integrated care. This approach enables better understanding of the behaviours and collaboration in integrated care and may also be used to develop guidance or governance in this area. The practical application of the values and their use at multiple levels is discussed. The consequences of different stakeholder perceptions on the values is explored and an agenda for future research is proposed.
| S-EPMC6251066 | biostudies-other
Project description:ImportanceEmerging evidence suggests that integrated care models are associated with improved mental health care access and outcomes for youths (children ≤12 years and adolescents 12-21 years) served in pediatric primary care settings. However, the key components of these complex models remain unexamined.ObjectiveTo identify and describe the key components of effective pediatric integrated mental health care models.Evidence reviewThe PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials electronic databases were searched for relevant peer-reviewed articles published between January 1, 1985, and April 30, 2019. Articles were restricted to those published in the English language. Eligible articles reported original data on youths 17 years or younger, implemented an integrated mental health care model in a pediatric primary care setting, and assessed the model's association with primary outcomes (eg, mental health symptom severity) and secondary outcomes (eg, functional impairment and patient satisfaction). Articles that specified some degree of systematic coordination or collaboration between primary care and mental health professionals were included in the final review. Two independent reviewers extracted data on study design, model type, model components, level of integration, and outcomes. Study quality was assessed using the Jadad scale. Data were analyzed between January 1, 2018, and May 31, 2019.FindingsEleven randomized clinical trials involving 2190 participants were included. Three studies focused on youths with depression, 3 on youths with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and 5 on youths with behavioral disorders. Most studies (9 of 11) implemented either the collaborative care model (n = 3), a slightly modified version of the collaborative care model (n = 2), or colocated care (n = 4). The most commonly reported components of effective pediatric integrated mental health care models were population-based care, measurement-based care, and delivery of evidence-based mental health services; all 3 components were present in studies reporting clinical improvement of mental health symptoms. Other model components, such as treatment-to-target or team-based care, were common in studies reporting specific outcomes, such as functional impairment.Conclusions and relevanceThis review is the first to date to systematically search and qualitatively synthesize information on the key components of effective pediatric integrated mental health care models. This knowledge may be especially useful for pediatric primary care administrators in the selection of an integrated care model for their setting.
| S-EPMC7483725 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Cancer of unknown primary (CUP) ranges within top 10 cancers in both incidence and mortality. As primary identification is crucial to choosing treatment, guidelines on CUP emphasize the diagnostic strategy. Whether guidelines are complied with, or if they are indeed helpful, is however unclear. We compared procedures performed in suspected CUP patients with recommendations of national guidelines to assess external validity of guidelines.The Danish National Patient Registry (NPR) comprising population data was utilized to identify the suspected CUP patients during 2009 to 2010 and explore exposure to procedures and patient survival. The cohort was investigated in terms of validity of diagnosis through cross-referencing with the Cancer Registry (CR), which served as gold standard for cancer diagnoses and patients' cancer histories.The NPR cohort consisted of 542 patients (275 males, 264 females) of whom 210 (38.7%) had a CUP diagnosis confirmed. Within the cohort, 347 patients (64.0%) had a registration in CR matching with the NPR registration. Exposure to diagnostic procedures included biopsy (n?=?439, 81.0%) and image modalities (n?=?532, 98.2%). Survival was poor with 67 (12.4%) individuals alive after 4 years.The validity of a CUP diagnosis in NPR was low when using data from CR as reference. More than half the suspected CUP patients had a previous cancer diagnosis with CUP being the most frequent. Patients were diagnosed in compliance with guidelines indicating high external validity, but less than 1 quarter had their primary identified and the 1-year survival was approximately 20%. Research is needed to develop efficacious methods for primary detection.
| S-EPMC5406101 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ContextTo aid translation of childhood obesity interventions evidence into practice, research studies must report results in a way that better supports pragmatic decision making. The current review evaluated the extent to which information on key external validity dimensions, participants, settings, interventions, outcomes, and maintenance of effects, was included in research studies on behavioral treatments for childhood obesity.Evidence acquisitionPeer-reviewed studies of behavioral childhood obesity treatments published between 1980 and 2008 were identified from (1) electronic searches of social science and medical databases; (2) research reviews of childhood obesity interventions; and (3) reference lists cited in these reviews. Included studies reported on a controlled obesity intervention trial, targeted overweight or obese children aged 2-18 years, included a primary or secondary anthropometric outcome, and targeted change in dietary intake or physical activity behaviors.Evidence synthesis1071 publications were identified and 77 met selection criteria. Studies were coded on established review criteria for external validity elements. All studies lacked full reporting of generalizability elements. Across criteria, the average reporting was 23.9% (range=0%-100%). Infrequently reported were setting-level selection criteria and representativeness, characteristics regarding intervention staff, implementation of the intervention content, costs, and program sustainability.ConclusionsEnhanced reporting of relevant and pragmatic information in behavioral investigations of childhood obesity interventions is needed to improve the ability to evaluate the applicability of results to practice implementation. Such evidence would improve translation of research to practice, provide additional explanation for variability in intervention outcomes, and provide insights into successful adaptations of interventions to local conditions.
| S-EPMC4573550 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimTo identify which patient-related effect modifiers influence the outcomes of integrated care programs for type 2 diabetes in primary care.BackgroundIntegrated care is a widespread management strategy for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. However, most integrated care programs are not tailored to patients' needs, preferences and abilities. There is increasing consensus that such a patient-centered approach could improve the management of type 2 diabetes. Thus far, it remains unclear which patient-related effect modifiers should guide such an approach.MethodsPubMed, CINAHL and EMBASE were searched for empirical studies published after 1998. A systematic literature review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines.FindingsIn total, 23 out of 1015 studies were included. A total of 21 studies measured the effects of integrated diabetes care programs on hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and three on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, systolic blood pressure and health-care utilization. In total, 49 patient characteristics were assessed as potential effect modifiers with HbA1c as an outcome, of which 46 were person or health-related and only three were context-related. Younger age, insulin therapy and longer disease duration were associated with higher HbA1c levels in cross-sectional and longitudinal studies. Higher baseline HbA1c was associated with higher HbA1c at follow-up in longitudinal studies. Information on context- and person-related characteristics was limited, but is necessary to help identify the care needs of individual patients and implement an effective integrated type 2 diabetes tailored care program.
| S-EPMC6452927 | biostudies-literature