Emma Tavender

Methods of hysterectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Abstract Objective To evaluate the most appropriate surgical method of hysterectomy (abdominal, vaginal, or laparoscopic) for women with benign disease. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase, and Biological Abstracts. Selection of studies Only randomised controlled trials were selected; participants had to have benign gynaecological disease; interventions had to comprise at least one hysterectomy method compared with another; and trials had to report primary outcomes (time taken to return to normal activities, intraoperative visceral injury, and major long term complications) or secondary outcomes (operating time, other immediate complications of surgery, short term complications, and duration of hospital stay). Results 27 trials (total of 3643 participants) were included. Return to normal activities was quicker after vaginal than after abdominal hysterectomy (weighted mean difference 9.5 (95% confidence interval 6.4 to 12.6) days) and after laparoscopic than after abdominal hysterectomy (difference 13.6 (11.8 to 15.4) days), but was not significantly different for laparoscopic versus vaginal hysterectomy (difference −1.1 (−4.2 to 2.1) days). There were more urinary tract injuries with laparoscopic than with abdominal hysterectomy (odds ratio 2.61 (95% confidence interval 1.22 to 5.60)), but no other intraoperative visceral injuries showed a significant difference between surgical approaches. Data were notably absent for many important long term patient outcome measures, where the analyses were underpowered to detect important differences, or they were simply not reported in trials. Conclusions Significantly speedier return to normal activities and other improved secondary outcomes (shorter duration of hospital stay and fewer unspecified infections or febrile episodes) suggest that vaginal hysterectomy is preferable to abdominal hysterectomy where possible. Where vaginal hysterectomy is not possible, laparoscopic hysterectomy is preferable to abdominal hysterectomy, although it brings a higher chance of bladder or ureter injury.

Understanding practice: the factors that influence management of mild traumatic brain injury in the emergency department-a qualitative study using the Theoretical Domains Framework

BackgroundMild traumatic brain injury is a frequent cause of presentation to emergency departments. Despite the availability of clinical practice guidelines in this area, there is variation in practice. One of the aims of the Neurotrauma Evidence Translation program is to develop and evaluate a targeted, theory- and evidence-informed intervention to improve the management of mild traumatic brain injury in Australian emergency departments. This study is the first step in the intervention development process and uses the Theoretical Domains Framework to explore the factors perceived to influence the uptake of four key evidence-based recommended practices for managing mild traumatic brain injury.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with emergency staff in the Australian state of Victoria. The interview guide was developed using the Theoretical Domains Framework to explore current practice and to identify the factors perceived to influence practice. Two researchers coded the interview transcripts using thematic content analysis.ResultsA total of 42 participants (9 Directors, 20 doctors and 13 nurses) were interviewed over a seven-month period. The results suggested that (i) the prospective assessment of post-traumatic amnesia was influenced by: knowledge; beliefs about consequences; environmental context and resources; skills; social/professional role and identity; and beliefs about capabilities; (ii) the use of guideline-developed criteria or decision rules to inform the appropriate use of a CT scan was influenced by: knowledge; beliefs about consequences; environmental context and resources; memory, attention and decision processes; beliefs about capabilities; social influences; skills and behavioral regulation; (iii) providing verbal and written patient information on discharge was influenced by: beliefs about consequences; environmental context and resources; memory, attention and decision processes; social/professional role and identity; and knowledge; (iv) the practice of providing brief, routine follow-up on discharge was influenced by: environmental context and resources; social/professional role and identity; knowledge; beliefs about consequences; and motivation and goals.ConclusionsUsing the Theoretical Domains Framework, factors thought to influence the management of mild traumatic brain injury in the emergency department were identified. These factors present theoretically based targets for a future intervention.

Effective stakeholder participation in setting research priorities using a Global Evidence Mapping approach.

OBJECTIVE We present a multistep process for identifying priority research areas in rehabilitation and long-term care of traumatic brain-injured (TBI) patients. In particular, we aimed to (1) identify which stakeholders should be involved; (2) identify what methods are appropriate; (3) examine different criteria for the generation of research priority areas; and (4) test the feasibility of linkage and exchange among researchers, decision makers, and other potential users of the research. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING Potential research questions were identified and developed using an initial scoping meeting and preliminary literature search, followed by a facilitated mapping workshop and an online survey. Identified research questions were then prioritized against specific criteria (clinical importance, novelty, and controversy). Existing evidence was then mapped to the high-priority questions using usual processes for search, screening, and selection. A broad range of stakeholders were then brought together at a forum to identify priority research themes for future research investment. Using clinical and research leaders, smaller targeted planning workshops prioritized specific research projects for each of the identified themes. RESULTS Twenty-six specific questions about TBI rehabilitation were generated, 14 of which were high priority. No one method identified all high-priority questions. Methods that relied solely on the views of clinicians and researchers identified fewer high-priority questions compared with methods that used broader stakeholder engagement. Evidence maps of these high-priority questions yielded a number of evidence gaps. Priority questions and evidence maps were then used to inform a research forum, which identified 12 priority themes for future research. CONCLUSION Our research demonstrates the value of a multistep and multimethod process involving many different types of stakeholders for prioritizing research to improve the rehabilitation outcomes of people who have suffered TBI. Enhancing stakeholder representation can be augmented using a combination of methods and a process of linkage and exchange. This process can inform decisions about prioritization of research areas.

Developing a targeted, theory-informed implementation intervention using two theoretical frameworks to address health professional and organisational factors: a case study to improve the management of mild traumatic brain injury in the emergency department

BackgroundDespite the availability of evidence-based guidelines for the management of mild traumatic brain injury in the emergency department (ED), variations in practice exist. Interventions designed to implement recommended behaviours can reduce this variation. Using theory to inform intervention development is advocated; however, there is no consensus on how to select or apply theory. Integrative theoretical frameworks, based on syntheses of theories and theoretical constructs relevant to implementation, have the potential to assist in the intervention development process. This paper describes the process of applying two theoretical frameworks to investigate the factors influencing recommended behaviours and the choice of behaviour change techniques and modes of delivery for an implementation intervention.MethodsA stepped approach was followed: (i) identification of locally applicable and actionable evidence-based recommendations as targets for change, (ii) selection and use of two theoretical frameworks for identifying barriers to and enablers of change (Theoretical Domains Framework and Model of Diffusion of Innovations in Service Organisations) and (iii) identification and operationalisation of intervention components (behaviour change techniques and modes of delivery) to address the barriers and enhance the enablers, informed by theory, evidence and feasibility/acceptability considerations. We illustrate this process in relation to one recommendation, prospective assessment of post-traumatic amnesia (PTA) by ED staff using a validated tool.ResultsFour recommendations for managing mild traumatic brain injury were targeted with the intervention. The intervention targeting the PTA recommendation consisted of 14 behaviour change techniques and addressed 6 theoretical domains and 5 organisational domains. The mode of delivery was informed by six Cochrane reviews. It was delivered via five intervention components : (i) local stakeholder meetings, (ii) identification of local opinion leader teams, (iii) a train-the-trainer workshop for appointed local opinion leaders, (iv) local training workshops for delivery by trained local opinion leaders and (v) provision of tools and materials to prompt recommended behaviours.ConclusionsTwo theoretical frameworks were used in a complementary manner to inform intervention development in managing mild traumatic brain injury in the ED. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the developed intervention is being evaluated in a cluster randomised trial, part of the Neurotrauma Evidence Translation (NET) program.

Where to build the bridge between evidence and practice?: results of an international workshop to prioritize knowledge translation activities in traumatic brain injury care.

Introduction:Treatment of patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) should be based upon the strongest evidence to achieve optimal patient outcomes. Given the challenges, efforts involved, and delays in uptake of evidence into practice, priorities for knowledge translation (KT) should be chosen carefully. An international workshop was convened to identify KT priorities for acute and rehabilitation care of TBI and develop KT projects addressing these priorities. Methods:An expert panel of 25 neurotrauma clinicians, researchers, and KT scientists representing 4 countries examined 66 neurotrauma research topics synthesized from 2 neurotrauma evidence resources: Evidence Based Review of Acquired Brain Injury and Global Evidence Mapping projects. The 2-day workshop combined KT theory presentations with small group activities to prioritize topics using a modified Delphi method. Results:Four acute care topics and 3 topics in the field of rehabilitation were identified. These were focused into 3 KT project proposals: optimization of intracranial pressure and nutrition in the first week following TBI; cognitive rehabilitation following TBI; and vocational rehabilitation following TBI. Conclusion:Three high-priority KT projects were developed: the first combined 2 important topics in acute TBI management of intracranial pressure management and nutrition, and the other projects focused on cognitive rehabilitation and vocational rehabilitation.

Organising health care services for people with an acquired brain injury: an overview of systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials

BackgroundAcquired brain injury (ABI) is the leading cause of disability worldwide yet there is little information regarding the most effective way to organise ABI health care services. The aim of this review was to identify the most up-to-date high quality evidence to answer specific questions regarding the organisation of health care services for people with an ABI.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of English papers using MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library. We included the most recently published high quality systematic reviews and any randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials, controlled before after studies or interrupted time series studies published subsequent to the systematic review. We searched for papers that evaluated pre-defined organisational interventions for adults with an ABI. Organisational interventions of interest included fee-for-service care, integrated care, integrated care pathways, continuity of care, consumer engagement in governance and quality monitoring interventions. Data extraction and appraisal of included reviews and studies was completed independently by two reviewers.ResultsA total of five systematic reviews and 21 studies were included in the review; eight of the papers (31%) included people with a traumatic brain injury (TBI) or ABI and the remaining papers (69%) included only participants with a diagnosis of stroke. We found evidence supporting the use of integrated care to improve functional outcome and reduce length of stay and evidence supporting early supported discharge teams for reducing morbidity and mortality and reducing length of stay for stroke survivors. There was little evidence to support case management or the use of integrated care pathways for people with ABI. We found evidence that a quality monitoring intervention can lead to improvements in process outcomes in acute and rehabilitation settings. We were unable to find any studies meeting our inclusion criteria regarding fee-for-service care or engaging consumers in the governance of the health care organisation.ConclusionsThe review found evidence to support integrated care, early supported discharge and quality monitoring interventions however, this evidence was based on studies conducted with people following stroke and may not be appropriate for all people with an ABI.

Improving the care of people with traumatic brain injury through the Neurotrauma Evidence Translation (NET) program: protocol for a program of research

The Neurotrauma Evidence Translation (NET) program was funded in 2009 to increase the uptake of research evidence in the clinical care of patients who have sustained traumatic brain injury. This paper reports the rationale and plan for this five-year knowledge translation research program. The overarching aims of the program are threefold: to improve outcomes for people with traumatic brain injury; to create a network of neurotrauma clinicians and researchers with expertise in knowledge translation and evidence-based practice; and to contribute knowledge to the field of knowledge translation research. The program comprises a series of interlinked projects spanning varying clinical environments and disciplines relevant to neurotrauma, anchored within four themes representing core knowledge translation activities: reviewing research evidence; understanding practice; developing and testing interventions for practice change; and building capacity for knowledge translation in neurotrauma. The program uses a range of different methods and study designs, including: an evidence fellowship program; conduct of and training in systematic reviews; mixed method study designs to describe and understand factors that influence current practices (e.g., semi-structured interviews and surveys); theory-based methods to develop targeted interventions aiming to change practice; a cluster randomised trial to test the effectiveness of a targeted theory-informed intervention; stakeholder involvement activities; and knowledge translation events such as consensus conferences.

The Many Organisational Factors Relevant to Planning Change in Emergency Care Departments: A Qualitative Study to Inform a Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial Aiming to Improve the Management of Patients with Mild Traumatic Brain Injuries

Background The Neurotrauma Evidence Translation (NET) Trial aims to design and evaluate the effectiveness of a targeted theory-and evidence-informed intervention to increase the uptake of evidence-based recommended practices for the management of patients who present to an emergency department (ED) with mild head injuries. When designing interventions to bring about change in organisational settings such as the ED, it is important to understand the impact of the context to ensure successful implementation of practice change. Few studies explicitly use organisational theory to study which factors are likely to be most important to address when planning change processes in the ED. Yet, this setting may have a unique set of organisational pressures that need to be taken into account when implementing new clinical practices. This paper aims to provide an in depth analysis of the organisational context in which ED management of mild head injuries and implementation of new practices occurs, drawing upon organisational level theory. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with ED staff in Australia. The interviews explored the organisational context in relation to change and organisational factors influencing the management of patients presenting with mild head injuries. Two researchers coded the interview transcripts using thematic content analysis. The “model of diffusion in service organisations” was used to guide analyses and organisation of the results. Results Nine directors, 20 doctors and 13 nurses of 13 hospitals were interviewed. With regard to characteristics of the innovation (i.e. the recommended practices) the most important factor was whether they were perceived as being in line with values and needs. Tension for change (the degree to which stakeholders perceive the current situation as intolerable or needing change) was relatively low for managing acute mild head injury symptoms, and mixed for managing longer-term symptoms (higher change commitment, but relatively low change efficacy). Regarding implementation processes, the importance of (visible) senior leadership for all professions involved was identified as a critical factor. An unpredictable and hectic environment brings challenges in creating an environment in which team-based and organisational learning can thrive (system antecedents for innovation). In addition, the position of the ED as the entry-point of the hospital points to the relevance of securing buy-in from other units. Conclusions We identified several organisational factors relevant to realising change in ED management of patients who present with mild head injuries. These factors will inform the intervention design and process evaluation in a trial evaluating the effectiveness of our implementation intervention.

Implementation research in emergency medicine: a systematic scoping review

Introduction Implementation research aims to increase the uptake of research findings into clinical practice to improve the quality of healthcare. This scoping systematic study aims to assess the volume and scope of implementation research in emergency medicine (EM) to obtain an overview and inform future implementation research. Methods Studies were identified by searching electronic databases and reference lists of included studies for the years 2002, 2007 and 2012. Titles/abstracts were screened, full papers checked and data extracted by one author, with a random sample checked by a second author. Results A total of 3581 citations were identified with 197 eligible papers included. The number of papers significantly increased over time from 26 in 2002 to 77 in 2007 and 94 in 2012 (p<0.05). Eighty-two (42%) focused on identifying evidence–practice gaps, 77 (39%) evaluated the effectiveness of implementation interventions and 38 (19%) explored barriers and enablers to change. Only two papers explicitly stated that theory was used. Five of the 77 effectiveness studies used a randomised design and few provided sufficient detail about the intervention undergoing evaluation. Conclusions Although there was a significant increase in the number of implementation research papers, most studies focused on identifying evidence–practice gaps or used weak study designs to evaluate the effects of implementation interventions. Recommendations for improving implementation research in EM include identifying barriers and enablers to implementation, using theory in areas where proven important gaps exist, improving the reporting of the content of interventions and using rigorous study designs to evaluate their effectiveness.

A Systematic Critical Appraisal of Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Rehabilitation of Children With Moderate or Severe Acquired Brain Injury

OBJECTIVE The aim of this review was to critically appraise the quality of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the rehabilitation of children with moderate or severe acquired brain injury (ABI). DATA SOURCES A systematic search of MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library was conducted and an extensive website search of prominent professional rehabilitation society websites. STUDY SELECTION CPGs were eligible for inclusion if they incorporated recommendation statements for inpatient and/or community rehabilitation for children with ABI and they were based on a systematic evidence search. DATA EXTRACTION Methodological quality of eligible CPGs were appraised by 3 independent reviewers using the AGREE II instrument. Characteristics of eligible CPGs and strength of supporting evidence for included recommendations were extracted. DATA SYNTHESIS Of the 9 included guidelines, 2 covered all ABIs, 5 focused specifically on traumatic brain injury, and 2 on stroke. Five of the CPGs were classified as high quality and 4 were of average quality. In general, CPGs scored better for scope and purpose, rigor of development, and clarity of presentation. They scored most poorly in applicability, involvement of target users, and procedures for updating the guidelines. Interrater reliability for the AGREE II was generally high across domains. Very few of the 445 recommendations included across the 9 CPGs were evidence based. CONCLUSIONS Despite variability in quality of the guideline development process, the included CPGs generally provided clear descriptions of their overall objectives, scope and purpose, employed systematic methods for searching, selecting, and appraising research evidence, and produced unambiguous, clearly identifiable recommendations for children with ABI. Overall, existing CPGs focusing on rehabilitation for children with ABI are based on low-quality evidence or expert consensus. Future work should focus on addressing the limitations of most of the current CPGs, particularly related to supporting implementation and integrating stakeholder involvement.