Agnes Grudniewicz

What is the effectiveness of printed educational materials on primary care physician knowledge, behaviour, and patient outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analyses

BackgroundPrinted educational materials (PEMs) are commonly used simple interventions that can be used alone or with other interventions to disseminate clinical evidence. They have been shown to have a small effect on health professional behaviour. However, we do not know whether they are effective in primary care. We investigated whether PEMs improve primary care physician (PCP) knowledge, behaviour, and patient outcomes.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of PEMs developed for PCPs. Electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials, quasi randomized controlled trials, controlled before and after studies, and interrupted time series. We combined studies using meta-analyses when possible. Statistical heterogeneity was examined, and meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model when significant statistical heterogeneity was present and a fixed effects model otherwise. The template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist was used to assess the quality of intervention description.ResultsOur search identified 12,439 studies and 40 studies met our inclusion criteria. We combined outcomes from 26 studies in eight meta-analyses. No significant effect was found on clinically important patient outcomes, physician behaviour, or physician cognition when PEMs were compared to usual care. In the 14 studies that could not be included in the meta-analyses, 14 of 71 outcomes were significantly improved following receipt of PEMs compared to usual care. Most studies lacked details needed to replicate the intervention.ConclusionsPEMs were not effective at improving patient outcomes, knowledge, or behaviour of PCPs. Further trials should explore ways to optimize the intervention and provide detailed information on the design of the materials.Protocol registrationPROSPERO, CRD42013004356

The development of a guideline implementability tool (GUIDE-IT): a qualitative study of family physician perspectives

BackgroundThe potential of clinical practice guidelines has not been realized due to inconsistent adoption in clinical practice. Optimising intrinsic characteristics of guidelines (e.g., its wording and format) that are associated with uptake (as perceived by their end users) may have potential. Using findings from a realist review on guideline uptake and consultation with experts in guideline development, we designed a conceptual version of a future tool called Guideline Implementability Tool (GUIDE-IT). The tool will aim to involve family physicians in the guideline development process by providing a process to assess draft guideline recommendations. This feedback will then be given back to developers to consider when finalizing the recommendations. As guideline characteristics are best assessed by end-users, the objectives of the current study were to explore how family physicians perceive guideline implementability, and to determine what components should comprise the final GUIDE-IT prototype.MethodsWe conducted a qualitative study with family physicians inToronto, Ontario. Two experienced investigators conducted one-hour interviews with family physicians using a semi-structured interview guide to 1) elicit feedback on perceptions on guideline implementability; 2) to generate a discussion in response to three draft recommendations; and 3) to provide feedback on the conceptual GUIDE-IT. Sessions were audio taped and transcribed verbatim. Data collection and analysis were guided by content analyses.Results20 family physicians participated. They perceived guideline uptake according to facilitators and barriers across 6 categories of guideline implementability (format, content, language, usability, development, and the practice environment). Participants’ feedback on 3 draft guideline recommendations were grouped according to guideline perception, cognition, and agreement. When asked to comment on GUIDE-IT, most respondents believed that the tool would be useful, but urged to involve “regular” or community family physicians in the process, and suggested that an online system would be the most efficient way to deliver it.ConclusionsOur study identified facilitators and barriers of guideline implementability from the perspective of community and academic family physicians that will be used to build our GUIDE-IT prototype. Our findings build on current knowledge by showing that family physicians perceive guideline uptake mostly according to factors that are in the control of guideline developers.

Organizational Context and Capabilities for Integrating Care: A Framework for Improvement

Background: Interventions aimed at integrating care have become widespread in healthcare; however, there is significant variability in their success. Differences in organizational contexts and associated capabilities may be responsible for some of this variability. Purpose: This study develops and validates a conceptual framework of organizational capabilities for integrating care, identifies which of these capabilities may be most important, and explores the mechanisms by which they influence integrated care efforts. Methods: The Context and Capabilities for Integrating Care (CCIC) Framework was developed through a literature review, and revised and validated through interviews with leaders and care providers engaged in integrated care networks in Ontario, Canada. Interviews involved open-ended questions and graphic elicitation. Quantitative content analysis was used to summarize the data. Results: The CCIC Framework consists of eighteen organizational factors in three categories: Basic Structures, People and Values, and Key Processes. The three most important capabilities shaping the capacity of organizations to implement integrated care interventions include Leadership Approach, Clinician Engagement and Leadership, and Readiness for Change. The majority of hypothesized relationships among organizational capabilities involved Readiness for Change and Partnering, emphasizing the complexity, interrelatedness and importance of these two factors to integrated care efforts. Conclusions: Organizational leaders can use the framework to determine readiness to integrate care, develop targeted change management strategies, and select appropriate partners with overlapping or complementary profiles on key capabilities. Researchers may use the results to test and refine the proposed framework, with a focus on the hypothesized relationships among organizational capabilities and between organizational capabilities and performance outcomes.

Organizational Capabilities for Integrating Care: A Review of Measurement Tools

The success of integrated care interventions is highly dependent on the internal and collective capabilities of the organizations in which they are implemented. Yet, organizational capabilities are rarely described, understood, or measured with sufficient depth and breadth in empirical studies or in practice. Assessing these capabilities can contribute to understanding why some integrated care interventions are more effective than others. We identified, organized, and assessed survey instruments that measure the internal and collective organizational capabilities required for integrated care delivery. We conducted an expert consultation and searched Medline and Google Scholar databases for survey instruments measuring factors outlined in the Context and Capabilities for Integrating Care Framework. A total of 58 instruments were included in the review and assessed based on their psychometric properties, practical considerations, and applicability to integrated care efforts. This study provides a bank of psychometrically sound instruments for describing and comparing organizational capabilities. Greater use of these instruments across integrated care interventions and studies can enhance standardized comparative analyses and inform change management. Further research is needed to build an evidence base for these instruments and to explore the associations between organizational capabilities and integrated care processes and outcomes.

Identifying older adults at risk of harm following elective surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundElective surgeries can be associated with significant harm to older adults. The present study aimed to identify the prognostic factors associated with the development of postoperative complications among older adults undergoing elective surgery.MethodsMedline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and AgeLine were searched for articles published between inception and April 21, 2016. Prospective studies reporting prognostic factors associated with postoperative complications (composite outcome of medical and surgical complications), functional decline, mortality, post-hospitalization discharge destination, and prolonged hospitalization among older adults undergoing elective surgery were included. Study characteristics and prognostic factors associated with the outcomes of interest were extracted independently by two reviewers. Random effects meta-analysis models were used to derive pooled effect estimates for prognostic factors and incidences of adverse outcomes.ResultsOf the 5692 titles and abstracts that were screened for inclusion, 44 studies (12,281 patients) reported on the following adverse postoperative outcomes: postoperative complications (n =28), postoperative mortality (n = 11), length of hospitalization (n = 21), functional decline (n = 6), and destination at discharge from hospital (n = 13). The pooled incidence of postoperative complications was 25.17% (95% confidence interval (CI) 18.03–33.98%, number needed to follow = 4). The geriatric syndromes of frailty (odds ratio (OR) 2.16, 95% CI 1.29–3.62) and cognitive impairment (OR 2.01, 95% CI 1.44–2.81) were associated with developing postoperative complications; however, there was no association with traditionally assessed prognostic factors such as age (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.00–1.14) or American Society of Anesthesiologists status (OR 2.62, 95% CI 0.78–8.79). Besides frailty, other potentially modifiable prognostic factors, including depressive symptoms (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.22–2.56) and smoking (OR 2.43, 95% CI 1.32–4.46), were also associated with developing postoperative complications.ConclusionGeriatric syndromes are important prognostic factors for postoperative complications. We identified potentially modifiable prognostic factors (e.g., frailty, depressive symptoms, and smoking) associated with developing postoperative complications that can be targeted preoperatively to optimize care.

Format guidelines to make them vivid, intuitive, and visual: use simple formatting rules to optimize usability and accessibility of clinical practice guidelines.

Aim:We present simple formatting rules derived from an extensive literature review that can improve the format of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), and potentially increase the likelihood of being used. Methods:We recently conducted a review of the literature from medicine, psychology, design, and human factors engineering on characteristics of guidelines that are associated with their use in practice, covering both the creation and communication of content. The formatting rules described in this article are derived from that review. Results:The formatting rules are grouped into three categories that can be easily applied to CPGs: first, Vivid: make it stand out; second, Intuitive: match it to the audiences expectations, and third, Visual: use alternatives to text. We highlight rules supported by our broad literature review and provide specific ‘how to’ recommendations for individuals and groups developing evidence-based materials for clinicians. Conclusion:The way text documents are formatted influences their accessibility and usability. Optimizing the formatting of CPGs is a relatively inexpensive intervention and can be used to facilitate the dissemination of evidence in healthcare. Applying simple formatting principles to make documents more vivid, intuitive, and visual is a practical approach that has the potential to influence the usability of guidelines and to influence the extent to which guidelines are read, remembered, and used in practice.

Architectural frameworks: defining the structures for implementing learning health systems

BackgroundThe vision of transforming health systems into learning health systems (LHSs) that rapidly and continuously transform knowledge into improved health outcomes at lower cost is generating increased interest in government agencies, health organizations, and health research communities. While existing initiatives demonstrate that different approaches can succeed in making the LHS vision a reality, they are too varied in their goals, focus, and scale to be reproduced without undue effort. Indeed, the structures necessary to effectively design and implement LHSs on a larger scale are lacking. In this paper, we propose the use of architectural frameworks to develop LHSs that adhere to a recognized vision while being adapted to their specific organizational context. Architectural frameworks are high-level descriptions of an organization as a system; they capture the structure of its main components at varied levels, the interrelationships among these components, and the principles that guide their evolution. Because these frameworks support the analysis of LHSs and allow their outcomes to be simulated, they act as pre-implementation decision-support tools that identify potential barriers and enablers of system development. They thus increase the chances of successful LHS deployment.DiscussionWe present an architectural framework for LHSs that incorporates five dimensions—goals, scientific, social, technical, and ethical—commonly found in the LHS literature. The proposed architectural framework is comprised of six decision layers that model these dimensions. The performance layer models goals, the scientific layer models the scientific dimension, the organizational layer models the social dimension, the data layer and information technology layer model the technical dimension, and the ethics and security layer models the ethical dimension. We describe the types of decisions that must be made within each layer and identify methods to support decision-making.ConclusionIn this paper, we outline a high-level architectural framework grounded in conceptual and empirical LHS literature. Applying this architectural framework can guide the development and implementation of new LHSs and the evolution of existing ones, as it allows for clear and critical understanding of the types of decisions that underlie LHS operations. Further research is required to assess and refine its generalizability and methods.

Capacity development in health systems and policy research: a survey of the Canadian context

BackgroundOver the past decade, substantial global investment has been made to support health systems and policy research (HSPR), with considerable resources allocated to training. In Canada, signs point to a larger and more highly skilled HSPR workforce, but little is known about whether growth in HSPR human resource capacity is aligned with investments in other research infrastructure, or what happens to HSPR graduates following training.MethodsWe collected data from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Canada’s national health research funding agency, and the Canadian Association for Health Services and Policy Research on recent graduates in the HSPR workforce. We also surveyed 45 Canadian HSPR training programs to determine what information they collect on the career experiences of graduates.ResultsNo university programs are currently engaged in systematic follow-up. Collaborative training programs funded by the national health research funding agency report performing short-term mandated tracking activities, but whether and how data are used is unclear. No programs collected information about whether graduates were using skills obtained in training, though information collected by the national funding agency suggests a minority (<30%) of doctoral-level trainees moving on to academic careers.ConclusionsSignificant investments have been made to increase HSPR capacity in Canada and around the world but no systematic attempts to evaluate the impact of these investments have been made. As a research community, we have the expertise and responsibility to evaluate our health research human resources and should strive to build a stronger knowledge base to inform future investment in HSPR research capacity.

Organizational Context Matters: A Research Toolkit for Conducting Standardized Case Studies of Integrated Care Initiatives

Introduction: The variable success of integrated care initiatives has led experts to recommend tailoring design and implementation to the organizational context. Yet, organizational contexts are rarely described, understood, or measured with sufficient depth and breadth in empirical studies or in practice. We thus lack knowledge of when and specifically how organizational contexts matter. To facilitate the accumulation of evidence, we developed a research toolkit for conducting case studies using standardized measures of the (inter-)organizational context for integrating care. Theory and Methods: We used a multi-method approach to develop the research toolkit: (1) development and validation of the Context and Capabilities for Integrating Care (CCIC) Framework, (2) identification, assessment, and selection of survey instruments, (3) development of document review methods, (4) development of interview guide resources, and (5) pilot testing of the document review guidelines, consolidated survey, and interview guide. Results: The toolkit provides a framework and measurement tools that examine 18 organizational and inter-organizational factors that affect the implementation and success of integrated care initiatives. Discussion and Conclusion: The toolkit can be used to characterize and compare organizational contexts across cases and enable comparison of results across studies. This information can enhance our understanding of the influence of organizational contexts, support the transfer of best practices, and help explain why some integrated care initiatives succeed and some fail.

What is a predatory journal? A scoping review

Background: There is no standardized definition of what a predatory journal is, nor have the characteristics of these journals been delineated or agreed upon. In order to study the phenomenon precisely a definition of predatory journals is needed. The objective of this scoping review is to summarize the literature on predatory journals, describe its epidemiological characteristics, and to extract empirical descriptions of potential characteristics of predatory journals. Methods: We searched five bibliographic databases: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase Classic + Embase, ERIC, and PsycINFO, and Web of Science on January 2 nd, 2018. A related grey literature search was conducted March 27 th, 2018. Eligible studies were those published in English after 2012 that discuss predatory journals. Titles and abstracts of records obtained were screened. We extracted epidemiological characteristics from all search records discussing predatory journals. Subsequently, we extracted statements from the empirical studies describing empirically derived characteristics of predatory journals. These characteristics were then categorized and thematically grouped. Results: 920 records were obtained from the search. 344 of these records met our inclusion criteria. The majority of these records took the form of commentaries, viewpoints, letters, or editorials (78.44%), and just 38 records were empirical studies that reported empirically derived characteristics of predatory journals. We extracted 109 unique characteristics from these 38 studies, which we subsequently thematically grouped into six categories: journal operations, article, editorial and peer review, communication, article processing charges, and dissemination, indexing and archiving, and five descriptors. Conclusions: This work identified a corpus of potential characteristics of predatory journals. Limitations of the work include our restriction to English language articles, and the fact that the methodological quality of articles included in our extraction was not assessed. These results will be provided to attendees at a stakeholder meeting seeking to develop a standardized definition for what constitutes a predatory journal.