Simon D. French

Developing theory-informed behaviour change interventions to implement evidence into practice: a systematic approach using the Theoretical Domains Framework

BackgroundThere is little systematic operational guidance about how best to develop complex interventions to reduce the gap between practice and evidence. This article is one in a Series of articles documenting the development and use of the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to advance the science of implementation research.MethodsThe intervention was developed considering three main components: theory, evidence, and practical issues. We used a four-step approach, consisting of guiding questions, to direct the choice of the most appropriate components of an implementation intervention: Who needs to do what, differently? Using a theoretical framework, which barriers and enablers need to be addressed? Which intervention components (behaviour change techniques and mode(s) of delivery) could overcome the modifiable barriers and enhance the enablers? And how can behaviour change be measured and understood?ResultsA complex implementation intervention was designed that aimed to improve acute low back pain management in primary care. We used the TDF to identify the barriers and enablers to the uptake of evidence into practice and to guide the choice of intervention components. These components were then combined into a cohesive intervention. The intervention was delivered via two facilitated interactive small group workshops. We also produced a DVD to distribute to all participants in the intervention group. We chose outcome measures in order to assess the mediating mechanisms of behaviour change.ConclusionsWe have illustrated a four-step systematic method for developing an intervention designed to change clinical practice based on a theoretical framework. The method of development provides a systematic framework that could be used by others developing complex implementation interventions. While this framework should be iteratively adjusted and refined to suit other contexts and settings, we believe that the four-step process should be maintained as the primary framework to guide researchers through a comprehensive intervention development process.

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.

A cochrane review of superficial heat or cold for low back pain

Study Design. Cochrane systematic review. Objective. To assess the effects of superficial heat and cold therapy for low back pain in adults. Summary of Background Data. Heat and cold are commonly used in the treatment of low back pain. Methods. We searched electronic databases from inception to October 2005. Two authors independently assessed inclusion, methodologic quality, and extracted data, using the criteria recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group. Results. Nine trials involving 1,117 participants were included. In two trials of 258 participants with a mix of acute and subacute low back pain, heat wrap therapy significantly reduced pain after 5 days (weighted mean difference [WMD], 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68–1.45, scale range, 0–5) compared with oral placebo. One trial of 90 participants with acute low back pain found that a heated blanket significantly decreased pain immediately after application (WMD, −32.20; 95% CI, −38.69 to −25.71; scale range, 0–100). One trial of 100 participants with a mix of acute and subacute low back pain examined the additional effects of adding exercise to heat wrap and found that it reduced pain after 7 days. Conclusions. The evidence base to support the common practice of superficial heat and cold for low back pain is limited, and there is a need for future higher-quality randomized controlled trials. There is moderate evidence in a small number of trials that heat wrap therapy provides a small short-term reduction in pain and disability in a population with a mix of acute and subacute low back pain, and that the addition of exercise further reduces pain and improves function. There is insufficient evidence to evaluate the effects of cold for low back pain and conflicting evidence for any differences between heat and cold for low back pain.

Evaluation of a Theory-Informed Implementation Intervention for the Management of Acute Low Back Pain in General Medical Practice: The IMPLEMENT Cluster Randomised Trial

Introduction This cluster randomised trial evaluated an intervention to decrease x-ray referrals and increase giving advice to stay active for people with acute low back pain (LBP) in general practice. Methods General practices were randomised to either access to a guideline for acute LBP (control) or facilitated interactive workshops (intervention). We measured behavioural predictors (e.g. knowledge, attitudes and intentions) and fear avoidance beliefs. We were unable to recruit sufficient patients to measure our original primary outcomes so we introduced other outcomes measured at the general practitioner (GP) level: behavioural simulation (clinical decision about vignettes) and rates of x-ray and CT-scan (medical administrative data). All those not involved in the delivery of the intervention were blinded to allocation. Results 47 practices (53 GPs) were randomised to the control and 45 practices (59 GPs) to the intervention. The number of GPs available for analysis at 12 months varied by outcome due to missing confounder information; a minimum of 38 GPs were available from the intervention group, and a minimum of 40 GPs from the control group. For the behavioural constructs, although effect estimates were small, the intervention group GPs had greater intention of practising consistent with the guideline for the clinical behaviour of x-ray referral. For behavioural simulation, intervention group GPs were more likely to adhere to guideline recommendations about x-ray (OR 1.76, 95%CI 1.01, 3.05) and more likely to give advice to stay active (OR 4.49, 95%CI 1.90 to 10.60). Imaging referral was not statistically significantly different between groups and the potential importance of effects was unclear; rate ratio 0.87 (95%CI 0.68, 1.10) for x-ray or CT-scan. Conclusions The intervention led to small changes in GP intention to practice in a manner that is consistent with an evidence-based guideline, but it did not result in statistically significant changes in actual behaviour. Trial Registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN012606000098538

IMPLEmenting a clinical practice guideline for acute low back pain evidence-based manageMENT in general practice (IMPLEMENT): cluster randomised controlled trial study protocol

BackgroundEvidence generated from reliable research is not frequently implemented into clinical practice. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines are a potential vehicle to achieve this. A recent systematic review of implementation strategies of guideline dissemination concluded that there was a lack of evidence regarding effective strategies to promote the uptake of guidelines. Recommendations from this review, and other studies, have suggested the use of interventions that are theoretically based because these may be more effective than those that are not. An evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the management of acute low back pain was recently developed in Australia. This provides an opportunity to develop and test a theory-based implementation intervention for a condition which is common, has a high burden, and for which there is an evidence-practice gap in the primary care setting.AimThis study aims to test the effectiveness of a theory-based intervention for implementing a clinical practice guideline for acute low back pain in general practice in Victoria, Australia. Specifically, our primary objectives are to establish if the intervention is effective in reducing the percentage of patients who are referred for a plain x-ray, and improving mean level of disability for patients three months post-consultation.Methods/DesignThis study protocol describes the details of a cluster randomised controlled trial. Ninety-two general practices (clusters), which include at least one consenting general practitioner, will be randomised to an intervention or control arm using restricted randomisation. Patients aged 18 years or older who visit a participating practitioner for acute non-specific low back pain of less than three months duration will be eligible for inclusion. An average of twenty-five patients per general practice will be recruited, providing a total of 2,300 patient participants. General practitioners in the control arm will receive access to the guideline using the existing dissemination strategy. Practitioners in the intervention arm will be invited to participate in facilitated face-to-face workshops that have been underpinned by behavioural theory. Investigators (not involved in the delivery of the intervention), patients, outcome assessors and the study statistician will be blinded to group allocation.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN012606000098538 (date registered 14/03/2006).

Investing in updating: how do conclusions change when Cochrane systematic reviews are updated?

BackgroundCochrane systematic reviews aim to provide readers with the most up-to-date evidence on the effects of healthcare interventions. The policy of updating Cochrane reviews every two years consumes valuable time and resources and may not be appropriate for all reviews. The objective of this study was to examine the effect of updating Cochrane systematic reviews over a four year period.MethodsThis descriptive study examined all completed systematic reviews in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) Issue 2, 1998. The latest version of each of these reviews was then identified in CDSR Issue 2, 2002 and changes in the review were described. For reviews that were updated within this time period and had additional studies, we determined whether their conclusion had changed and if there were factors that were predictive of this change.ResultsA total of 377 complete reviews were published in CDSR Issue 2, 1998. In Issue 2, 2002, 14 of these reviews were withdrawn and one was split, leaving 362 reviews to examine for the purpose of this study. Of these reviews, 254 (70%) were updated. Of these updated reviews, 23 (9%) had a change in conclusion. Both an increase in precision and a change in statistical significance of the primary outcome were predictive of a change in conclusion of the review.ConclusionThe concerns around a lack of updating for some reviews may not be justified considering the small proportion of updated reviews that resulted in a changed conclusion. A priority-setting approach to the updating of Cochrane systematic reviews may be more appropriate than a time-based approach. Updating all reviews as frequently as every two years may not be necessary, however some reviews may need to be updated more often than every two years.

A Cochrane Review of combined chiropractic interventions for low-back pain

Study Design. Cochrane systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Objective. To determine the effects of combined chiropractic interventions on pain, disability, back-related function, overall improvement, and patient satisfaction in adults with low-back pain (LBP). Summary of Background Data. Chiropractors commonly use a combination of interventions to treat people with LBP, but little is known about the effects of this care. Methods. We used a comprehensive search strategy. All randomized trials comparing combined chiropractic interventions (rather than spinal manipulation alone) with no treatment or other therapies were included. At least two authors selected studies, assessed bias risk, and extracted data. Descriptive synthesis and meta-analyses were performed. Results. We included 12 studies involving 2887 LBP participants. Three studies had low risk of bias. Included studies evaluated a range of chiropractic procedures in a variety of subpopulations with LBP. For acute and subacute LBP, chiropractic interventions improved short- and medium-term pain (standardized mean difference [SMD] −0.25 [95% CI: −0.46 to −0.04] and MD −0.89 [95%CI: −1.60 to −0.18]) compared with other treatments, but there was no significant difference in long-term pain (MD −0.46 [95% CI −1.18 to 0.26]). Short-term improvement in disability was greater in the chiropractic group compared to other therapies (SMD −0.36 [95% CI: −0.70 to −0.02]). However, the effect was small and studies contributing to these results had high risk of bias. There was no difference in medium- and long-term disability. No difference was demonstrated for combined chiropractic interventions for chronic LBP and studies that had a mixed population of LBP. Conclusion. Combined chiropractic interventions slightly improved pain and disability in the short term and pain in the medium term for acute/subacute LBP. However, there is currently no evidence that supports or refutes that these interventions provide a clinically meaningful difference for pain or disability in people with LBP when compared to other interventions.

Barriers and Facilitators to Exercise Participation in People with Hip and/or Knee Osteoarthritis: Synthesis of the Literature Using Behavior Change Theory

ABSTRACTExercise is recommended for hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA). Patient initiation of, and adherence to, exercise is key to the success of managing symptoms. This study aimed to (1) identify modifiable barriers and facilitators to participation in intentional exercise in hip and/or knee OA, and (2) synthesize findings using behavior change theory. A scoping review with systematic searches was conducted through March 2015. Two reviewers screened studies for eligibility. Barriers and facilitators were extracted and synthesized according to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) by two independent reviewers. Twenty-three studies (total of 4633 participants) were included. The greatest number of unique barriers and facilitators mapped to the Environmental Context and Resources domain. Many barriers were related to Beliefs about Consequences and Beliefs about Capabilities, whereas many facilitators were related to Reinforcement. Clinicians should take a proactive role in facilitating exercise uptake and adherence, rather than trusting patients to independently overcome barriers to exercise. Strategies that may be useful include a personalized approach to exercise prescription, considering environmental context and available resources, personalized education about beneficial consequences of exercise and reassurance about exercise capability, and use of reinforcement strategies. Future research should investigate the effectiveness of behavior change interventions that specifically target these factors.

Chiropractic Observation and Analysis Study (COAST): Providing an understanding of current chiropractic practice

Objectives: COAST (Chiropractic Observation and Analysis Study) aimed to describe the clinical practices of chiropractors in Victoria, Australia.

Understanding diagnosis and management of dementia and guideline implementation in general practice: a qualitative study using the theoretical domains framework.

BackgroundDementia is a growing problem, causing substantial burden for patients, their families, and society. General practitioners (GPs) play an important role in diagnosing and managing dementia; however, there are gaps between recommended and current practice. The aim of this study was to explore GPs’ reported practice in diagnosing and managing dementia and to describe, in theoretical terms, the proposed explanations for practice that was and was not consistent with evidence-based guidelines.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with GPs in Victoria, Australia. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) guided data collection and analysis. Interviews explored the factors hindering and enabling achievement of 13 recommended behaviours. Data were analysed using content and thematic analysis. This paper presents an in-depth description of the factors influencing two behaviours, assessing co-morbid depression using a validated tool, and conducting a formal cognitive assessment using a validated scale.ResultsA total of 30 GPs were interviewed. Most GPs reported that they did not assess for co-morbid depression using a validated tool as per recommended guidance. Barriers included the belief that depression can be adequately assessed using general clinical indicators and that validated tools provide little additional information (theoretical domain of ‘Beliefs about consequences’); discomfort in using validated tools (‘Emotion’), possibly due to limited training and confidence (‘Skills’; ‘Beliefs about capabilities’); limited awareness of the need for, and forgetting to conduct, a depression assessment (‘Knowledge’; ‘Memory, attention and decision processes’). Most reported practising in a manner consistent with the recommendation that a formal cognitive assessment using a validated scale be undertaken. Key factors enabling this were having an awareness of the need to conduct a cognitive assessment (‘Knowledge’); possessing the necessary skills and confidence (‘Skills’; ‘Beliefs about capabilities’); and having adequate time and resources (‘Environmental context and resources’).ConclusionsThis is the first study to our knowledge to use a theoretical approach to investigate the barriers and enablers to guideline-recommended diagnosis and management of dementia in general practice. It has identified key factors likely to explain GPs’ uptake of the guidelines. The results have informed the design of an intervention aimed at supporting practice change in line with dementia guidelines, which is currently being evaluated in a cluster randomised trial.