Strategies for improving the quality of health care in maternal and child health in low- and middle-income countries: an overview of systematic reviews. Evidence to action: a tailored multifaceted approach to changing family physician practice patterns and improving preventive care. Is health equity considered in systematic reviews of the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group? Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Impact of study quality on outcome in placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy. A randomized controlled trial evaluating the impact of knowledge translation and exchange strategies. Use of an 'evidence-based implementation' strategy to implement evidence-based care of asthma into rural district hospital emergency departments. Randomised controlled trial of a theoretically grounded tailored intervention to diffuse evidence-based public health practice [ISRCTN23257060]. Comparison of an enhanced versus a written feedback model on the management of Medicare inpatients with venous thrombosis. Publication bias and meta-analyses: a practical example. An endocrinologist-supported intervention aimed at providers improves diabetes management in a primary care site: improving primary care of African Americans with diabetes (IPCAAD) 7. Effects of a multicomponent intervention on functional outcomes and process of care in hospitalized older patients: a randomized controlled trial of Acute Care for Elders (ACE) in a community hospital. Randomized effectiveness trial of a computer-assisted intervention to improve diabetes care. Evaluating the effectiveness of 2 educational interventions in family practice. Cluster randomized controlled trial of the effectiveness of audit and feedback and educational outreach on improving nursing practice and patient outcomes.
There are many systematic reviews of continuing education programmes and educational strategies for quality improvement in health care. Most of the reviewed studies are one-off evaluations rather than impact evaluations with long-term follow-up. There are few systematic reviews of organisational, financial and regulatory interventions, and few high-quality studies. These interventions are probably as or more important than educational strategies, although they are less well evaluated. Few studies have been undertaken in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) or that address maternal and child health (MCH). Thus, the results of the available studies and reviews need to be interpreted cautiously when applied to LMIC. Interactive workshops, reminders and multifaceted interventions can improve professional practice, and they generally have moderate effects. Educational outreach visits consistently improve prescribing but have variable effects on other behaviours. Audit and feedback interventions have variable effects on professional practice, but most often these are small to moderate effects. Mass-media and patient-mediated interventions may change professional practice. Multifaceted interventions that combine several quality-improvement strategies are also effective but may not be more so than single interventions. While all of these strategies are applicable to MCH in LMIC, the applicability of the results to rural settings, in particular, may be limited. Use of these strategies could exacerbate inequalities, and this should be taken into consideration when planning implementation. Scaling up and sustainability may be difficult to achieve in LMIC contexts and need careful consideration. The use of financial interventions has not been well studied; financial incentives and disincentives may be difficult to use effectively and efficiently, although their impact on practice needs to be considered. Organisational interventions are likely to be important, given that there are often underlying organisational or system problems. Regulatory interventions have not been well evaluated, but may sometimes be both inexpensive and effective. There are no 'magic bullets' or simple solutions for ensuring the quality of health care services. Interventions should be selected or tailored to address the underlying reasons for a failure to deliver effective services. Decision-makers should select the most appropriate interventions for specific problems. This requires a governance structure that clearly assigns responsibility for quality-improvement activities, priority setting, selection and design of interventions, and evaluation. Although there is much room for improvement in the performance of recommended preventive manoeuvres, many inappropriate preventive interventions are being done. We evaluated a multifaceted intervention, delivered by nurses trained in prevention facilitation, to improve prevention in primary care.
                Forty-six health service organizations (HSOs) were recruited from 100 sites in Ontario. After baseline data were collected, we randomly assigned the practices to either an 18-month (July 1997 to December 1998) multifaceted intervention delivered by 1 of 3 nurse facilitators (23 practices) or no intervention (23 practices). The unit of intervention and analysis was the medical practice. The outcome measure was an overall index of preventive performance, which was calculated as the proportion of eligible patients who received 8 recommended preventive manoeuvres less the proportion of eligible patients who received 5 inappropriate preventive manoeuvres.
                One HSO, in the intervention group, was lost to follow-up. Before the intervention, the index of preventive performance was similar for the intervention and control groups (31.9% [95% confidence interval (CI) 27.3%-36.5%] and 32.1% [95% CI 27.2%-37.0%] respectively). At follow-up the corresponding values were 43.2% (95% CI 38.4%-48.0%) and 31.9% (95% CI 26.8%-37.0%), for an absolute improvement in the intervention group of 11.5% (p < 0.001). The mean proportion of eligible patients who received the recommended manoeuvres was 62.3% (95% CI 58.2%-66.4%) in the intervention group, as compared with 57.4% (95% CI 54.1%-60.7%) in the control group, for an absolute improvement of 7.2% (p = 0.008). The corresponding values for the inappropriate manoeuvres were 19.1% (95% CI 15.6%-22.6%) and 25.5% (95% CI 20.0%-31.0%), for an absolute improvement of 4.4% (p = 0.019).
                The tailored multifaceted intervention delivered by nurse facilitators was effective in modifying physician practice patterns and significantly improved preventive care performance. To determine whether Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group (CMSG) systematic reviews and corresponding primary studies of rheumatoid arthritis interventions report and analyze the data needed to assess the effectiveness of interventions in reducing socioeconomic differences in health and/or improving the health of the poor.
                We selected all CMSG reviews on rheumatoid arthritis published since issue 1, 2003. Fourteen reviews were identified; 147 of the 156 primary studies included in these reviews were obtained and assessed. We extracted data on whether the dimensions place of residence, race/ethnicity/culture, occupation, gender, religion, education, socioeconomic status, and social capital and networks (PROGRESS) were reported or analyzed, and whether any interventions were aimed at disadvantaged or low- and middle-income country populations.
                Among the dimensions of PROGRESS reported at baseline in 147 primary studies, gender (89%) was the most commonly reported, followed by education (25%) and race/ethnicity (18%). Less than 50% of the systematic reviews reported dimensions of PROGRESS even when they had been reported in the primary study. Of 147 primary studies, 6 (5%) were aimed specifically at disadvantaged populations; another 6 reported on effectiveness by at least 1 dimension of PROGRESS.
                Primary studies of interventions for rheumatoid arthritis generally reported few variables necessary to answer questions about health inequalities. Most CMSG systematic reviews failed to assess those variables even when described in the primary studies. The Cochrane Health Equity Field welcomes the opportunity to provide guidance to systematic review authors on incorporating equity considerations into their reviews. Few meta-analyses of randomised trials assess the quality of the studies included. Yet there is increasing evidence that trial quality can affect estimates of intervention efficacy. We investigated whether different methods of quality assessment provide different estimates of intervention efficacy evaluated in randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
                We randomly selected 11 meta-analyses that involved 127 RCTs on the efficacy of interventions used for circulatory and digestive diseases, mental health, and pregnancy and childbirth. We replicated all the meta-analyses using published data from the primary studies. The quality of reporting of all 127 clinical trials was assessed by means of component and scale approaches. To explore the effects of quality on the quantitative results, we examined the effects of different methods of incorporating quality scores (sensitivity analysis and quality weights) on the results of the meta-analyses.
                The quality of trials was low. Masked assessments provided significantly higher scores than unmasked assessments (mean 2.74 [SD 1.10] vs 2.55 [1.20]). Low-quality trials (score < or = 2), compared with high-quality trials (score > 2), were associated with an increased estimate of benefit of 34% (ratio of odds ratios [ROR] 0.66 [95% CI 0.52-0.83]). Trials that used inadequate allocation concealment, compared with those that used adequate methods, were also associated with an increased estimate of benefit (37%; ROR=0.63 [0.45-0.88]). The average treatment benefit was 39% (odds ratio [OR] 0.61 [0.57-0.65]) for all trials, 52% (OR 0.48 [0.43-0.54]) for low-quality trials, and 29% (OR 0.71 [0.65-0.77]) for high-quality trials. Use of all the trial scores as quality weights reduced the effects to 35% (OR 0.65 [0.59-0.71]) and resulted in the least statistical heterogeneity.
                Studies of low methodological quality in which the estimate of quality is incorporated into the meta-analyses can alter the interpretation of the benefit of intervention, whether a scale or component approach is used in the assessment of trial quality. We investigated the influence of indicators of methodological quality on study outcome in a set of 89 placebo-controlled clinical trials of homoeopathy in three different ways: (1) The results of studies meeting single criteria (explicit statement of random allocation, allocation concealment, double-blinding, completeness of follow-up) of methodological quality were compared with those of studies not meeting the criteria in univariate and multivariate analyses; (2) The results of studies scoring above and below predefined scores in two quality assessment scales were compared; (3) Primary studies were consecutively entered into a cumulative meta-analysis according to the summary scores derived from the quality assessment scales. All analyses were performed using meta-regression methods. Studies that were explicitly randomized and were double-blind as well as studies scoring above the cut-points yielded significantly less positive results than studies not meeting the criteria. In the cumulative meta-analyses, there was a trend for increasing effect sizes when more studies with lower-quality scores were added. However, there was no linear relationship between quality scores and study outcome. We conclude that in the study set investigated, there was clear evidence that studies with better methodological quality tended to yield less positive results. Because summarizing disparate study features into a single score is problematic, meta-regression methods simultaneously investigating the influence of single study features seem the best method for investigating the impact of study quality on outcome. Significant resources and time are invested in the production of research knowledge. The primary objective of this randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of three knowledge translation and exchange strategies in the incorporation of research evidence into public health policies and programs.
                This trial was conducted with a national sample of public health departments in Canada from 2004 to 2006. The three interventions, implemented over one year in 2005, included access to an online registry of research evidence; tailored messaging; and a knowledge broker. The primary outcome assessed the extent to which research evidence was used in a recent program decision, and the secondary outcome measured the change in the sum of evidence-informed healthy body weight promotion policies or programs being delivered at health departments. Mixed-effects models were used to test the hypotheses.
                One hundred and eight of 141 (77%) health departments participated in this study. No significant effect of the intervention was observed for primary outcome (p < 0.45). However, for public health policies and programs (HPPs), a significant effect of the intervention was observed only for tailored, targeted messages (p < 0.01). The treatment effect was moderated by organizational research culture (e.g., value placed on research evidence in decision making).
                The results of this study suggest that under certain conditions tailored, targeted messages are more effective than knowledge brokering and access to an online registry of research evidence. Greater emphasis on the identification of organizational factors is needed in order to implement strategies that best meet the needs of individual organizations.
                The trial registration number and title are as follows: ISRCTN35240937 -- Is a knowledge broker more effective than other strategies in promoting evidence-based physical activity and healthy body weight programming? To determine if an evidence-based implementation (EBI) could lead to the successful implementation of evidence based care for adult asthma in small rural district hospitals.
                A controlled trial involving eight small rural hospitals (four each in the study and control groups) was conducted. Retrospective pre-intervention audits were conducted at all eight hospitals for 7 months (1 January 2004 to 31 July 2004) and evidence-practice gaps identified. An EBI was then used to implement established guidelines for the management of asthma in the study hospitals. Post-intervention audits were then performed over a period of 7 months (1 October 2004 to 31 April 2005).
                There were 52 presentations of asthma in the study hospitals in the pre-implementation phase and 47 post-implementation. The corresponding numbers for the control hospitals were 46 and 42 respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in the severity between the groups. Following the EBI there were significant improvements at the study hospitals for the documentation of severity (8% to 62%, p <0.001), use of spirometry (12% to 62%, p <0.001) and the use of written short-term asthma plans (9% to 26%, p = 0.05). There was a decrease in use of ipratropium in mild asthma (44% to 30%, p = 0.228), an increase in the use of systemic steroids (61% to 72%, p = 0.255) and no change in prescribing antibiotics for afebrile patients with asthma (21% to 21% p = 0.956). There was no significant change in practice at the control hospitals except for a decrease in the use of systemic steroids (48% to 21%, p = 0.011). For the six clinical indicators aggregate there was a significant increase in compliance with guidelines at the study hospitals (36% to 62%, p < 0.001) but no change at the control hospitals (31% to 31%, p = 0.970).
                The pre-intervention audits demonstrated low levels of compliance with asthma guidelines across six clinical indicators. An EBI significantly improved compliance across these six indicators, and no improvement was noted in the control hospitals. This study demonstrates that an EBI can alter clinical practice in small rural district hospitals. Previous studies have shown that Norwegian public health physicians do not systematically and explicitly use scientific evidence in their practice. They work in an environment that does not encourage the integration of this information in decision-making. In this study we investigate whether a theoretically grounded tailored intervention to diffuse evidence-based public health practice increases the physicians' use of research information.
                148 self-selected public health physicians were randomised to an intervention group (n = 73) and a control group (n = 75). The intervention group received a multifaceted intervention while the control group received a letter declaring that they had access to library services. Baseline assessments before the intervention and post-testing immediately at the end of a 1.5-year intervention period were conducted. The intervention was theoretically based and consisted of a workshop in evidence-based public health, a newsletter, access to a specially designed information service, to relevant databases, and to an electronic discussion list. The main outcome measure was behaviour as measured by the use of research in different documents.
                The intervention did not demonstrate any evidence of effects on the objective behaviour outcomes. We found, however, a statistical significant difference between the two groups for both knowledge scores: Mean difference of 0.4 (95% CI: 0.2-0.6) in the score for knowledge about EBM-resources and mean difference of 0.2 (95% CI: 0.0-0.3) in the score for conceptual knowledge of importance for critical appraisal. There were no statistical significant differences in attitude-, self-efficacy-, decision-to-adopt- or job-satisfaction scales. There were no significant differences in Cochrane library searching after controlling for baseline values and characteristics.
                Though demonstrating effect on knowledge the study failed to provide support for the hypothesis that a theory-based multifaceted intervention targeted at identified barriers will change professional behaviour. A multistate randomized study conducted under the Health Care Financing Administration's (HCFA's) Health Care Quality Improvement Program (HCQIP) offered the opportunity to compare the effect of a written feedback intervention (WFI) with that of an enhanced feedback intervention (EFI) on improving the anticoagulant management of Medicare beneficiaries who present to the hospital with venous thromboembolic disease.
                Twenty-nine hospitals in five states were randomly assigned to receive written hospital-specific feedback (WFI) of feedback enhanced by the participation of a trained physician, quality improvement tools, and an Anticoagulant Management of Venous Thrombosis (AMVT) project liaison (EFI). Differences in the performance of five quality indicators between baseline and remeasurement were assessed. Quality managers were interviewed to determine perceptions of project implementation.
                No significant differences in the change from baseline to remeasurement were found between the two intervention groups. Significant improvement in one indicator and significant decline in two indicators were found for one or both groups. Yet 59% of all quality managers perceived the AMVT project as being successful to very successful, and more EFI quality managers perceived success than did WFI managers (71% versus 40%). In the majority of EFI hospitals, physician liaisons played an important role in project implementation.
                Study results indicated that the addition of a physician liaison, quality improvement tools, and a project liaison did not provide incremental value to hospital-specific feedback for improving quality of care. Future studies with larger sample sizes, lengthier follow-up periods, and interventions that include more of the elements shown to affect practice behavior change are needed to identify an optimal feedback model for use by external quality management organizations. Publication bias is widely appreciated, but considerable time and effort are needed to locate and obtain data from unpublished randomized controlled trials (RCTs), those published in non-English language journals or those reported in the gray literature; for this publication, we will call this collection of trials the "gray+literature." However, excluding such trials from systematic reviews could introduce bias and give rise to misleading conclusions.
                We aimed to explore and quantify the impact of inclusion of gray+ literature on the results of all completed individual patient data (IPD) reviews coordinated by our group (13 meta-analyses). For each IPD review, results were calculated for RCTs fully published in English language journals and RCTs fully published in English language journals and the gray+literature.
                The IPD meta-analyses based only on RCTs that were fully published in English language journals tended to give more favorable results than those that included RCTs from the gray+literature. Although in most cases the addition of gray+data gave less encouraging results, moving the estimated treatment effect toward a null result, the direction of effect was not always predictable.
                We recommend that all systematic reviews should at least attempt to identify trials reported in the gray+literature and, where possible, obtain data from them. Management of diabetes is frequently suboptimal in primary care settings, where providers often fail to intensify therapy when glucose levels are high, a problem known as clinical inertia. We asked whether interventions targeting clinical inertia can improve outcomes.
                A controlled trial over a 3-year period was conducted in a municipal hospital primary care clinic in a large academic medical center. We studied all patients (4,138) with type 2 diabetes who were seen in continuity clinics by 345 internal medicine residents and were randomized to be control subjects or to receive one of three interventions. Instead of consultative advice, the interventions were hard copy computerized reminders that provided patient-specific recommendations for management at the time of each patient's visit, individual face-to-face feedback on performance for 5 min every 2 weeks, or both.
                Over an average patient follow-up of 15 months within the intervention site, improvements in and final HbA1c (A1C) with feedback + reminders (deltaA1C 0.6%, final A1C 7.46%) were significantly better than control (deltaA1C 0.2%, final A1C 7.84%, P < 0.02); changes were smaller with feedback only and reminders only (P = NS vs. control). Trends were similar but not significant with systolic blood pressure (sBP) and LDL cholesterol. Multivariable analysis showed that the feedback intervention independently facilitated attainment of American Diabetes Association goals for both A1C and sBP. Over a 2-year period, overall glycemic control improved in the intervention site but did not change in other primary care sites (final A1C 7.5 vs. 8.2%, P < 0.001).
                Feedback on performance aimed at overcoming clinical inertia and given to internal medicine resident primary care providers improves glycemic control. Partnering generalists with diabetes specialists may be important to enhance diabetes management in other primary care settings. Older persons frequently experience a decline in function following an acute medical illness and hospitalization.
                To test the hypothesis that a multicomponent intervention, called Acute Care for Elders (ACE), will improve functional outcomes and the process of care in hospitalized older patients.
                Randomized controlled trial.
                Community teaching hospital.
                A total of 1,531 community-dwelling patients, aged 70 or older, admitted for an acute medical illness between November 1994 and May 1997.
                ACE includes a specially designed environment (with, for example, carpeting and uncluttered hallways); patient-centered care, including nursing care plans for prevention of disability and rehabilitation; planning for patient discharge to home; and review of medical care to prevent iatrogenic illness.
                The main outcome was change in the number of independent activities of daily living (ADL) from 2 weeks before admission (baseline) to discharge. Secondary outcomes included resource use, implementation of orders to promote function, and patient and provider satisfaction.
                Self-reported measures of function did not differ at discharge between the intervention and usual care groups by intention-to-treat analysis. The composite outcome of ADL decline from baseline or nursing home placement was less frequent in the intervention group at discharge (34% vs 40%; P = .027) and during the year following hospitalization (P = .022). There were no significant group differences in hospital length of stay and costs, home healthcare visits, or readmissions. Nursing care plans to promote independent function were more often implemented in the intervention group (79% vs 50%; P = .001), physical therapy consults were obtained more frequently (42% vs 36%; P = .027), and restraints were applied to fewer patients (2% vs 6%; P = .001). Satisfaction with care was higher for the intervention group than the usual care group among patients, caregivers, physicians, and nurses (P < .05).
                ACE in a community hospital improved the process of care and patient and provider satisfaction without increasing hospital length of stay or costs. A lower frequency of the composite outcome ADL decline or nursing home placement may indicate potentially beneficial effects on patient outcomes. There is a well-documented gap between diabetes care guidelines and the services received by patients in most health care settings. This report presents 12-month follow-up results from a computer-assisted, patient-centered intervention to improve the level of recommended services patients received from a variety of primary care settings.
                A total of 886 patients with type 2 diabetes under the care of 52 primary care physicians participated in the Diabetes Priority Program. Physicians were stratified and randomized to intervention or control conditions and evaluated on two primary outcomes: number of recommended laboratory screenings and recommended patient-centered care activities completed from the National Committee on Quality Assurance/American Diabetes Association Provider Recognition Program (PRP). Secondary outcomes were evaluated using the Problem Areas in Diabetes 2 quality of life scale, lipid and HbA1c levels, and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 depression scale.
                The program was well implemented and significantly improved both the number of laboratory assays and patient-centered aspects of diabetes care patients received compared with those in the control condition. There was overall improvement on secondary outcomes of lipids, HbA1c, quality of life, and depression scores; between-condition differences were not significant.
                Staff in small, mixed-payer primary care offices can consistently implement a patient-centered intervention to improve PRP measures of quality of diabetes care. Alternative explanations for why these process improvements did not lead to improved outcomes, and suggested directions for future research are discussed. Structured feedback of information can produce change in physician behaviour. The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of 2 educational interventions for improving the quality of care provided by family physicians in Ontario: the Practice Assessment Report (PAR) and the Continuing Medical Education Plan (CMEP) with a follow-up visit by a mentor.
                The study was a randomized controlled trial. Physicians in the control group received only the PAR, whereas those in the experimental group received the PAR, CMEP and mentor interventions. The participants were 56 family physicians and general practitioners (27 in the PAR group and 29 in the CMEP group) in southern Ontario who agreed to participate in the interventions and provide data. A total of 2395 patients randomly sampled from the practices returned questionnaires and consented to have their medical records abstracted. The outcome measures were global scores in 4 areas--quality of care, charting, prevention and overall use of medications--and patient ratings of satisfaction with care and preventive practices. The measures were applied at the beginning (phase 1) and end (phase 2) of the study.
                The mean global scores at the end of the study for the PAR group were 70.1% for quality of care, 84.7% for prevention, 77.7% for charting and 82.2% for overall use of medications. The corresponding scores for the CMEP group were 68.3%, 82.1%, 76.4% and 83.2%. In the patient satisfaction component, the personal care scores at phase 2 were 93.6% for the PAR group and 94.6% for the CMEP group. Examples of the scores for prevention for the PAR group were 98.3% for children's current immunization, 96.6% for blood pressure measured within the previous 5 years, 79.4% for referral of women of the appropriate age for mammography within the previous 2 years, and 58.4% for discussion about alcohol use. The corresponding scores for the CMEP group were 95.8%, 97.6%, 77.6% and 64.6%. The changes in mean scores between phase 1 and phase 2 ranged from -1.9 to 2.3 points. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in phase 1 or phase 2 scores or in change in scores. A total of 64.3% of the physicians rated the PAR as useful, 26.5% found the CMEP to be useful, and 41.0% considered the mentor strategy to be a useful form of continuing medical education. Although changes in practice related to the PAR, CMEP or mentor were reported by some physicians, they were not related to chart audit or patient scores.
                Educational interventions based on quality-of-care assessments and directed to global improvements in quality of care did not result in improvements in the outcome measures. Educational interventions may have to be targeted to specific areas of the practice, with physicians being monitored and receiving ongoing feedback on their performance. Current understanding of implementation methods is limited, and research has focused on changing doctors' behaviors.
                Our aim was to evaluate the impact of audit and feedback and educational outreach in improving nursing practice and patient outcomes.
                Using a factorial design, cluster randomized controlled trial, we evaluated 194 community nurses in 157 family practices and 1078 patients with diagnosis of urinary incontinence (UI) for nurses compliance with evidence-linked review criteria for the assessment and management of UI and impact on psychologic and social well-being and symptoms. In the outreach arms, nurses' self-reported barriers informed development of tailored strategies.
                In comparison with educational materials alone, the implementation methods tested did not improve care at 6 months follow-up. Moderate rates of improvement (10-17% of patients) in performance for the assessment of UI and greater rates of improvement (20-30% of patients) for the management of care were found but effects were similar across arms. Improvement in patient outcomes was more consistently positive for educational outreach than for audit and feedback but differences were not significant. Adjustment for caseload size, severity or duration of UI and patients' age did not alter results.
                Printed educational materials alone may be as effective as audit and feedback and educational outreach in improving nurses' performance and outcomes of care for people with UI. Greater understanding of the underlying processes in improving performance within multidisciplinary teams through further, theory-driven studies with "no intervention" control groups and longer follow-up are needed.
This updated review reports on 15 studies that met the inclusion criteria (nine studies from this update and six studies from the 2008 update). Although these studies reported some positive outcomes, due to the small number of studies and the heterogeneity of interventions and outcome measures, it is not possible to draw generalisable inferences about the key elements of IPE and its effectiveness. To improve the quality of evidence relating to IPE and patient outcomes or healthcare process outcomes, the following three gaps will need to be filled: first, studies that assess the effectiveness of IPE interventions compared to separate, profession-specific interventions; second, RCT, CBA or ITS studies with qualitative strands examining processes relating to the IPE and practice changes; third, cost-benefit analyses.