Gro Jamtvedt

Does telling people what they have been doing change what they do? A systematic review of the effects of audit and feedback

Background: Many people advocate audit and feedback as a strategy for improving professional practice. The main results of an update of a Cochrane review on the effects of audit and feedback are reported. Data sources: The Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group’s register up to January 2004 was searched. Randomised trials of audit and feedback that reported objectively measured professional practice in a healthcare setting or healthcare outcomes were included. Review methods: Data were independently extracted and the quality of studies were assessed by two reviewers. Quantitative, visual and qualitative analyses were undertaken. Main results: 118 trials are included in the review. In the primary analysis, 88 comparisons from 72 studies were included that compared any intervention in which audit and feedback was a component to no intervention. For dichotomous outcomes, the median-adjusted risk difference of compliance with desired practice was 5% (interquartile range 3–11). For continuous outcomes, the median-adjusted percentage change relative to control was 16% (interquartile range 5–37). Low baseline compliance with recommended practice and higher intensity of audit and feedback appeared to predict the effectiveness of audit and feedback. Conclusions: Audit and feedback can be effective in improving professional practice. The effects are generally small to moderate. The absolute effects of audit and feedback are likely to be larger when baseline adherence to recommended practice is low and intensity of audit and feedback is high.

Physical Therapy Interventions for Patients With Osteoarthritis of the Knee: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

Patients with osteoarthritis of the knee are commonly treated by physical therapists. Practice should be informed by updated evidence from systematic reviews. The purpose of this article is to summarize the evidence from systematic reviews on the effectiveness of physical therapy for patients with knee osteoarthritis. Systematic reviews published between 2000 and 2007 were identified by a comprehensive literature search. We graded the quality of evidence across reviews for each comparison and outcome. Twenty-three systematic reviews on physical therapy interventions for patients with knee osteoarthritis were included. There is high-quality evidence that exercise and weight reduction reduce pain and improve physical function in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. There is moderate-quality evidence that acupuncture, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, and low-level laser therapy reduce pain and that psychoeducational interventions improve psychological outcomes. For other interventions and outcomes, the quality of evidence is low or there is no evidence from systematic reviews.

What do we know about how to do audit and feedback? Pitfalls in applying evidence from a systematic review

BackgroundImproving the quality of health care requires a range of evidence-based activities. Audit and feedback is commonly used as a quality improvement tool in the UK National Health Service [NHS]. We set out to assess whether current guidance and systematic review evidence can sufficiently inform practical decisions about how to use audit and feedback to improve quality of care.MethodsWe selected an important chronic disease encountered in primary care: diabetes mellitus. We identified recommendations from National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidance on conducting audit and generated questions which would be relevant to any attempt to operationalise audit and feedback in a healthcare service setting. We explored the extent to which a systematic review of audit and feedback could provide practical guidance about whether audit and feedback should be used to improve quality of diabetes care and, if so, how audit and feedback could be optimised.ResultsNational guidance suggests the importance of securing the right organisational conditions and processes. Review evidence suggests that audit and feedback can be effective in changing healthcare professional practice. However, the available evidence says relatively little about the detail of how to use audit and feedback most efficiently.ConclusionAudit and feedback will continue to be an unreliable approach to quality improvement until we learn how and when it works best. Conceptualising audit and feedback within a theoretical framework offers a way forward.

Taking healthcare interventions from trial to practice

The results of thousands of trials are never acted on because their published reports do not describe the interventions in enough detail. How can we improve the reporting?

Growing Literature, Stagnant Science? Systematic Review, Meta-Regression and Cumulative Analysis of Audit and Feedback Interventions in Health Care

ABSTRACTBACKGROUNDThis paper extends the findings of the Cochrane systematic review of audit and feedback on professional practice to explore the estimate of effect over time and examine whether new trials have added to knowledge regarding how optimize the effectiveness of audit and feedback.METHODSWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and EMBASE for randomized trials of audit and feedback compared to usual care, with objectively measured outcomes assessing compliance with intended professional practice. Two reviewers independently screened articles and abstracted variables related to the intervention, the context, and trial methodology. The median absolute risk difference in compliance with intended professional practice was determined for each study, and adjusted for baseline performance. The effect size across studies was recalculated as studies were added to the cumulative analysis. Meta-regressions were conducted for studies published up to 2002, 2006, and 2010 in which characteristics of the intervention, the recipients, and trial risk of bias were tested as predictors of effect size.RESULTSOf the 140 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) included in the Cochrane review, 98 comparisons from 62 studies met the criteria for inclusion. The cumulative analysis indicated that the effect size became stable in 2003 after 51 comparisons from 30 trials. Cumulative meta-regressions suggested new trials are contributing little further information regarding the impact of common effect modifiers. Feedback appears most effective when: delivered by a supervisor or respected colleague; presented frequently; featuring both specific goals and action-plans; aiming to decrease the targeted behavior; baseline performance is lower; and recipients are non-physicians.DISCUSSIONThere is substantial evidence that audit and feedback can effectively improve quality of care, but little evidence of progress in the field. There are opportunity costs for patients, providers, and health care systems when investigators test quality improvement interventions that do not build upon, or contribute toward, extant knowledge.

The updated cochrane review of bed rest for low back pain and sciatica.

Study Design. A systematic review within the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group. Objectives. To report the main results from the updated version of the Cochrane Review on bed rest for low back pain. Summary of Background Data. There has been a growing amount of evidence showing that bed rest is not beneficial for people with low back pain. However, existing systematic reviews are unclear regarding the effects of bed rest for different types of low back pain. Methods. All randomized studies available in systematic searches up to March 2003 were included. Two reviewers independently selected trials for inclusion assessed the validity of included trials and extracted data. Investigators were contacted to obtain missing information. Results. Two new trials comparing advice to rest in bed with advice to stay active were included. There is high quality evidence that people with acute low back pain who are advised to rest in bed have a little more pain (standardized mean difference 0.22, 95% confidence interval: 0.02–0.41) and a little less functional recovery (standardized mean difference 0.29, 95% confidence interval: 0.05–0.45) than those advised to stay active. For patients with sciatica, there is moderate quality evidence of little or no difference in pain (standardized mean difference −0.03, 95% confidence interval: −0.24–0.18) or functional status (standardized mean difference 0.19, 95% confidence interval: −0.02–0.41) between bed rest and staying active. Conclusion. For people with acute low back pain, advice to rest in bed is less effective than advice to stay active. For patients with sciatica, there is little or no difference between advice to rest in bed and advice to stay active.

Multifaceted strategies may increase implementation of physiotherapy clinical guidelines: a systematic review

QUESTION What is the effectiveness of strategies to increase the implementation of physiotherapy clinical guidelines? DESIGN Systematic review. PARTICIPANTS Physiotherapists treating any type of patients. INTERVENTION Single or multiple strategies to increase the implementation of physiotherapy clinical guidelines. OUTCOME MEASURES Professional practice, patient health, and cost of care. RESULTS Five papers reporting three cluster-randomised trials evaluated whether multifaceted strategies based on educational meetings increased the implementation of low back pain guidelines (2 trials) or whiplash guidelines (1 trial). Educational meetings were effective in increasing adherence to the following recommendations of low back pain guidelines: limiting the number of sessions (RD 0.13, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.23), using active intervention (RD 0.13, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.21), giving adequate information (RD 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.11), increasing activity level (RD 0.16, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.30), changing attitudes/beliefs about pain (RD 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.24). Educational meetings were effective in increasing adherence to the following recommendations of whiplash guidelines: reassuring the patient (RD 0.40, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.74), advising the patient to act as usual (RD 0.48, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.80), using functional outcome measures (RD 0.62, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.92). There was no evidence that patient health was improved or that the cost of care was reduced. CONCLUSION This review shows that multifaceted interventions based on educational meetings to increase implementation of clinical guidelines may improve some outcomes of professional practice but do not improve patient health or reduce cost of care. These findings are comparable with results among other health professions.

The cochrane review of advice to stay active as a single treatment for low back pain and sciatica.

Study Design. A systematic review was conducted within the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group. Objectives. To assess the effects of advice to stay active as a single treatment for patients with acute low back pain or sciatica. Summary of Background Data. Low back pain is a common reason for consulting a health care provider, and advice on daily activities constitutes an important part in the primary care management of low back pain. Methods. All randomized studies available in systematic searches (electronic databases, contact with authors, reference lists) were included. Two reviewers independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed the validity of the included trials, and extracted data. Investigators were contacted to obtain missing information. Results. Four trials, with a total of 491 patients, were included. In all the trials, advice to stay active was compared with advice for bed rest. Two trials were assessed as having a low risk of bias, and two as having a moderate to high risk of bias. The results were heterogeneous. The results from one high-quality trial of patients with acute, simple low back pain found small differences in functional status (weighted mean difference on a 0 to 100 scale, 6.0; 95% CI, 1.5–10.5) and length of sick leave (weighted mean difference, 3.4 days; 95% CI, 1.6–5.2) in favor of staying active, as compared with advice to stay in bed 2 days. The other high-quality trial compared advice to stay active with advice to rest in bed 14 days for patients with sciatic syndrome, and found no differences between the groups. One of the high-quality trials also compared advice to stay active with advice to engage in exercises for patients with acute, simple low back pain, and found improvement in functional status and reduced sick leave in favor of advice to stay active. Conclusion. The best available evidence suggests that advice to stay active alone has little beneficial effect for patients with acute, simple low back pain, and little or no effect for patients with sciatica. There is no evidence that advice to stay active is harmful for either acute low back pain or sciatica. Because there is no considerable difference between advice to stay active and advice for bed rest, and there are potential harmful effects of prolonged bed rest, it is reasonable to advise people with acute low back pain and sciatica to stay active. These conclusions are based on single trials.

Effectiveness of Nonpharmacological and Nonsurgical Interventions for Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

Conclusions based on systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials are considered to provide the highest level of evidence about the effectiveness of an intervention. This overview summarizes the available evidence from systematic reviews on the effects of nonpharmacological and nonsurgical interventions for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Systematic reviews of studies of patients with RA (aged >18 years) published between 2000 and 2007 were identified by comprehensive literature searches. Methodological quality was independently assessed by 2 authors, and the quality of evidence was summarized by explicit methods. Pain, function, and patient global assessment were considered primary outcomes of interest. Twenty-eight systematic reviews were included in this overview. High-quality evidence was found for beneficial effects of joint protection and patient education, moderate-quality evidence was found for beneficial effects of herbal therapy (gamma-linolenic acid) and low-level laser therapy, and low-quality evidence was found for the effectiveness of the other interventions. The quality of evidence for the effectiveness of most nonpharmacological and nonsurgical interventions in RA is moderate to low.

The cochrane review of bed rest for acute low back pain and sciatica

Study Design. A systematic review within the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group. Objectives. To assess the effects of advice to rest in bed for patients with acute low back pain (LBP) or sciatica. Summary of Background Data. Low back pain is a common reason for consulting a health care provider, and advice on daily activities constitutes an important part in the primary care management of low back pain. Methods. All randomized studies available in systematic searches (electronic databases, contact with authors, and reference lists) were included. Two reviewers independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed the validity of included trials, and extracted data. Investigators were contacted to obtain missing information. Results. Nine trials with a total of 1435 patients were included. Four trials compared bed rest with advice to stay active, and the overall results were heterogeneous. Overall, results from two high-quality studies indicate no difference in pain intensity at the 3-week follow-up (standardized mean difference 0.0; 95% confidence interval [CI] −0.3, 0.2]), and a small difference in functional status in favor of staying active (weighted mean difference 3.2 [on a 0–100 scale] 95% CI 0.6, 5.8). In two high-quality trials no differences were reported in pain intensity between 2–3 days of bed rest and 7 days of bed rest. In another two high-quality trials, no differences were found between bed rest and exercises in pain intensity or functional status. Conclusion. Bed rest compared with advice to stay active at best has no effect, and at worst may have slightly harmful effects on LBP. There is not an important difference in the effects of bed rest compared with exercises in the treatment of acute low back pain, or 7 days compared with 2–3 days of bed rest in patients with low back pain of different durations with and without radiating pain..