Dataset Information

Trends in guideline implementation: an updated scoping review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Guidelines aim to support evidence-informed practice but are inconsistently used without implementation strategies. Our prior scoping review revealed that guideline implementation interventions were not selected and tailored based on processes known to enhance guideline uptake and impact. The purpose of this study was to update the prior scoping review.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL, Scopus, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for studies published from 2014 to January 2021 that evaluated guideline implementation interventions. We screened studies in triplicate and extracted data in duplicate. We reported study and intervention characteristics and studies that achieved impact with summary statistics.

Results

We included 118 studies that implemented guidelines on 16 clinical topics. With regard to implementation planning, 21% of studies referred to theories or frameworks, 50% pre-identified implementation barriers, and 36% engaged stakeholders in selecting or tailoring interventions. Studies that employed frameworks (n=25) most often used the theoretical domains framework (28%) or social cognitive theory (28%). Those that pre-identified barriers (n=59) most often consulted literature (60%). Those that engaged stakeholders (n=42) most often consulted healthcare professionals (79%). Common interventions included educating professionals about guidelines (44%) and information systems/technology (41%). Most studies employed multi-faceted interventions (75%). A total of 97 (82%) studies achieved impact (improvements in one or more reported outcomes) including 10 (40% of 25) studies that employed frameworks, 28 (47.45% of 59) studies that pre-identified barriers, 22 (52.38% of 42) studies that engaged stakeholders, and 21 (70% of 30) studies that employed single interventions.

Conclusions

Compared to our prior review, this review found that more studies used processes to select and tailor interventions, and a wider array of types of interventions across the Mazza taxonomy. Given that most studies achieved impact, this might reinforce the need for implementation planning. However, even studies that did not plan implementation achieved impact. Similarly, even single interventions achieved impact. Thus, a future systematic review based on this data is warranted to establish if the use of frameworks, barrier identification, stakeholder engagement, and multi-faceted interventions are associated with impact.

Trial registration

The protocol was registered with Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/4nxpr ) and published in JBI Evidence Synthesis.

SUBMITTER: Peters S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9308215 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionGuideline-adherent physiotherapy can improve patient outcomes and reduce costs in the healthcare system. However, although there are numerous guidelines for physiotherapy practice, services are not consistently based on clinical practice guidelines. While various systematic and scoping reviews have highlighted barriers, facilitators and implementation strategies for guideline-adherent practice in other health professions, this scoping review aims to explore the barriers and facilitators for guideline-adherent physiotherapy and summarises the strategies used to implement such practice.Methods and analysisThis scoping review will be based on Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review methodology and the methodological guidance for conducting scoping reviews published by Joanna Briggs Institute. Relevant publications will be first searched from the beginning of June 2023 on the MEDLINE and CINAHL databases before we expand the search to other databases such as EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and PEDro at the end of June 2023. Two reviewers will independently screen the titles and abstracts of all retrieved citations for inclusion against the eligibility criteria before conducting an independent full-text screening. The criteria will be tested on a sample of abstracts before beginning the abstract review to ensure that they are robust enough to capture any articles that may relate. The extracted data will finally be collated and charted to summarise key findings regarding our research question.Ethics and disseminationThis scoping review will provide an extensive overview of the barriers, facilitators and implementation strategies for guideline-adherent physiotherapy. As scoping reviews are a form of secondary data analysis, ethical review is not required. Results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication and stakeholder meetings.Trial registration numberThis scoping review has been registered on 3 April 2023 on the Open Science Framework under https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/SEUW6.

Project description:BackgroundA previous review on compassion in healthcare (1988-2014) identified several empirical studies and their limitations. Given the large influx and the disparate nature of the topic within the healthcare literature over the past 5 years, the objective of this study was to provide an update to our original scoping review to provide a current and comprehensive map of the literature to guide future research and to identify gaps and limitations that remain unaddressed.MethodsEight electronic databases along with the grey literature were searched to identify empirical studies published between 2015 and 2020. Of focus were studies that aimed to explore compassion within the clinical setting, or interventions or educational programs for improving compassion, sampling clinicians and/or patient populations. Following title and abstract review, two reviewers independently screened full-text articles, and performed data extraction. Utilizing a narrative synthesis approach, data were mapped onto the categories, themes, and subthemes that were identified in the original review. Newly identified categories were discussed among the team until consensus was achieved.ResultsOf the 14,166 number of records identified, 5263 remained after removal of duplicates, and 50 articles were included in the final review. Studies were predominantly conducted in the UK and were qualitative in design. In contrast to the original review, a larger number of studies sampled solely patients (n = 12), and the remainder focused on clinicians (n = 27) or a mix of clinicians and other (e.g. patients and/or family members) (n = 11). Forty-six studies explored perspectives on the nature of compassion or compassionate behaviours, traversing six themes: nature of compassion, development of compassion, interpersonal factors related to compassion, action and practical compassion, barriers and enablers of compassion, and outcomes of compassion. Four studies reported on the category of educational or clinical interventions, a notable decrease compared to the 10 studies identified in the original review.ConclusionsSince the original scoping review on compassion in healthcare, while a greater number of studies incorporated patient perspectives, clinical or educational interventions appeared to be limited. More efficacious and evidence-based interventions or training programs tailored towards improving compassion for patients in healthcare is required.

Project description:BackgroundOne in five people living in Ireland is a migrant. Understanding the distinctive health needs of this diverse population is essential to provide evidence-based, culturally sensitive primary care services. The aim of this review is to systematically examine changes in migrant health research in Ireland and to inform research, policy and practice in the field.MethodsTo update a 2017 scoping review of migrant health research in Ireland, we used Arksey and O'Malley's framework, updates by Colquhoun and Peters and the PRISMA-ScR from the Joanna Briggs Institute to search 10 databases covering May 2017 - March 2023. Findings were analysed using the World Health Organisation Strategy and Action Plan for Refugee and Migrant Health 2016-2023, which identifies 9 priority strategic areas (SA). Findings were compared with the 2017 review.Results62 papers were identified. There has been an increase in studies over time from an average of five per year in the previous review to an average of 10 per year in this review. There is growing interest in research about SA1: Collaborative action on migrant health issues and SA2: Advocacy for the right to health of refugees and migrants - evidenced by an increase of 13% in this review. Similarly to 2017, the majority of papers align with three of the nine WHO Strategic Areas; SA3: Addressing the social determinants of health (24%), SA4: Achieving public health preparedness (29%) and SA5: Strengthening health systems (26%). The volume of research on SA6: Communicable diseases (11%) and SA7: Noncommunicable diseases (19%) remains stable however research on SA8: Health screening and assessment (5%) and SA9: Improving health information and communication (2%) remains low.ConclusionsThe increase in the volume of research on migrant health in Ireland is notable. The analysis over time illuminates changes in the focus of research studies. Gaps in research about screening, assessment and health information warrant particular attention. It is also necessary to continue paying attention to areas of recent growth and stagnation for a balanced and comprehensive evidence base. Mobilising resources to continue this increase is needed for evidence-based policy and practice.

Project description:BackgroundDespite wide recognition that clinical care should be informed by the best available evidence, this does not always occur. Despite a myriad of theories, models and frameworks to promote evidence-based population health, there is still a long way to go, particularly in maternity care. The aim of this study is to appraise the scientific study of methods to promote the systematic uptake of evidence-based interventions in maternity care. This is achieved by clarifying if and how implementation science theories, models, and frameworks are used.MethodsTo map relevant literature, a scoping review was conducted of articles published between January 2005 and December 2019, guided by Peters and colleagues' (2015) approach. Specifically, the following academic databases were systematically searched to identify publications that presented findings on implementation science or the implementation process (rather than just the intervention effect): Business Source Complete; CINAHL Plus with Full Text; Health Business Elite; Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition; Medline; PsycARTICLES; PsycINFO; and PubMed. Information about each study was extracted using a purposely designed data extraction form.ResultsOf the 1181 publications identified, 158 were included in this review. Most of these reported on factors that enabled implementation, including knowledge, training, service provider motivation, effective multilevel coordination, leadership and effective communication-yet there was limited expressed use of a theory, model or framework to guide implementation. Of the 158 publications, 144 solely reported on factors that helped and/or hindered implementation, while only 14 reported the use of a theory, model and/or framework. When a theory, model or framework was used, it typically guided data analysis or, to a lesser extent, the development of data collection tools-rather than for instance, the design of the study.ConclusionGiven that models and frameworks can help to describe phenomenon, and theories can help to both describe and explain it, evidence-based maternity care might be promoted via the greater expressed use of these to ultimately inform implementation science. Specifically, advancing evidence-based maternity care, worldwide, will require the academic community to make greater explicit and judicious use of theories, models, and frameworks.RegistrationRegistered with the Joanna Briggs Institute (registration number not provided).

Project description:BackgroundReduction or elimination of inappropriate, ineffective, or potentially harmful healthcare services and public health programs can help to ensure limited resources are used effectively. Frameworks and models (FM) are valuable tools in conceptualizing and guiding the study of de-implementation. This scoping review sought to identify and characterize FM that can be used to study de-implementation as a phenomenon and identify gaps in the literature to inform future model development and application for research.MethodsWe searched nine databases and eleven journals from a broad array of disciplines (e.g., healthcare, public health, public policy) for de-implementation studies published between 1990 and June 2020. Two raters independently screened titles and abstracts, and then a pair of raters screened all full text records. We extracted information related to setting, discipline, study design, methodology, and FM characteristics from included studies.ResultsThe final search yielded 1860 records, from which we screened 126 full text records. We extracted data from 27 articles containing 27 unique FM. Most FM (n = 21) were applicable to two or more levels of the Socio-Ecological Framework, and most commonly assessed constructs were at the organization level (n = 18). Most FM (n = 18) depicted a linear relationship between constructs, few depicted a more complex structure, such as a nested or cyclical relationship. Thirteen studies applied FM in empirical investigations of de-implementation, while 14 articles were commentary or review papers that included FM.ConclusionDe-implementation is a process studied in a broad array of disciplines, yet implementation science has thus far been limited in the integration of learnings from other fields. This review offers an overview of visual representations of FM that implementation researchers and practitioners can use to inform their work. Additional work is needed to test and refine existing FM and to determine the extent to which FM developed in one setting or for a particular topic can be applied to other contexts. Given the extensive availability of FM in implementation science, we suggest researchers build from existing FM rather than recreating novel FM.RegistrationNot registered.

Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 spreads via aerosol droplets. The dental profession is at high risk of contracting the virus since their work includes treatment procedures that produce aerosols. Teledentistry offers an opportunity to mitigate the risk to dental personnel by allowing dentists to provide care without direct patient contact.ObjectiveThe purpose of this scoping review was to examine the implementation, challenges, strategies, and innovations related to teledentistry during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown.MethodsThis scoping review evaluated teledentistry use during the pandemic by searching for articles in PubMed and Google Scholar using the search terms teledentistry, tele-dentistry, covid-19, coronavirus, telehealth, telemedicine, and dentistry. Inclusion criteria consisted of articles published in English from March 1, 2020, to April 1, 2022, that were relevant to dentistry and its specialties, and that included some discussion of teledentistry and COVID-19. Specifically, the review sought to explore teledentistry implementation, challenges, strategies to overcome challenges, and innovative ideas that emerged during the pandemic. It followed the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). This approach is organized into 5 distinct steps: formulating a defined question, using the question to develop inclusion criteria to identify relevant studies, an approach to appraise the studies, summarizing the evidence using an explicit methodology, and interpreting the findings of the review.ResultsA total of 32 articles was included in this scoping review and summarized by article type, methodology and population, and key points about the aims; 9 articles were narrative review articles, 10 were opinion pieces, 4 were descriptive studies, 3 were surveys, 2 were integrative literature reviews, and there was 1 each of the following: observational study, systematic review, case report, and practice brief. Teledentistry was used both synchronously and asynchronously for virtual consultations, often employing commercial applications such as WhatsApp, Skype, and Zoom. Dental professionals most commonly used teledentistry for triage, to reduce in-person visits, and for scheduling and providing consultations remotely. Identified challenges included patient and clinician acceptance of teledentistry, having adequate infrastructure, reimbursement, and security concerns. Strategies to address these concerns included clinician and patient training and utilizing Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant applications. Benefits from teledentistry included providing care for patients during the pandemic and extending care to areas lacking access to dental care.ConclusionsPandemic lockdowns led to new teledentistry implementations, most commonly for triage but also for follow-up and nonprocedural care. Teledentistry reduced in-person visits and improved access to remote areas. Challenges such as technology infrastructure, provider skill level, billing issues, and privacy concerns remain.