Tari Turner

Living Systematic Reviews: An Emerging Opportunity to Narrow the Evidence-Practice Gap

Julian Elliott and colleagues discuss how the current inability to keep systematic reviews up-to-date hampers the translation of knowledge into action. They propose living systematic reviews as a contribution to evidence synthesis to enhance the accuracy and utility of health evidence.

Multidisciplinary care for tracheostomy patients: a systematic review

IntroductionAppropriate care for patients with tracheostomies in hospital settings is an important issue. Each year more than 7000 patients receive tracheostomies in Australia and New Zealand alone. Many of these tracheostomy patients commence their care in the intensive care unit (ICU) and once stabilised are then transferred to a general ward. Insufficient skills and experience of staff caring for tracheostomy patients may lead to sub-optimal care and increased morbidity. The purpose of this review was to identify whether multidisciplinary tracheostomy outreach teams enable the reduction in time to decannulation and length of stay in acute and sub-acute settings, improve quality of care or decrease adverse events for patients with a tracheostomy.MethodsWe included all relevant trials published in English. We searched Medline, CINAHL, All EBM and EMBASE in June 2009. Studies were selected and appraised by two reviewers in consultation with colleagues, using inclusion, exclusion and appraisal criteria established a priori.ResultsThree studies were identified which met the study selection criteria. All were cohort studies with historical controls. All studies included adult patients with tracheostomies. One study was conducted in the UK and the other two in Australia. Risk of bias was moderate to high in all studies. All papers concluded that the introduction of multidisciplinary care reduces the average time to decannulation for tracheostomy patients discharged from the ICU. Two papers also reported that multidisciplinary care reduced the overall length of stay in hospital as well as the length of stay following ICU discharge.ConclusionsIn the papers we appraised, patients with a tracheostomy tube in situ discharged from an ICU to a general ward who received care from a dedicated multidisciplinary team as compared with standard care showed reductions in time to decannulation, length of stay and adverse events. Impacts on quality of care were not reported.These results should be interpreted with caution due to the methodological weaknesses in the historical control studies.

Patient-held medical records for patients with chronic disease: a systematic review

Objectives To determine whether in patients with chronic disease a patient-held medical record (PHR), compared to usual care, improves clinical care, patient outcomes or satisfaction. Design Systematic review. Data sources Databases searched were All EBM (The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, DARE CENTRAL), Medline, CINAHL and EMBASE from 1980 to 16 February 2009. Study selection Two reviewers assessed comparative studies that compared paper-based PHR to usual care for inclusion using a priori study selection criteria. Studies reviewed Four hundred and eighty-one articles were reviewed by title and abstract. Full text was retrieved for 120 articles. Fourteen studies met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and were appraised using a priori criteria for methodological quality. Results Fourteen studies were included in diabetes, oncology, mental health, rheumatoid arthritis, stroke and palliative care. The studies used a variety of designs of PHR and compared this with usual care. PHR were implemented with varying degrees of patient and staff support and education, mainly for six months or less. Outcomes included attitudes on the usefulness of PHR, the quality of information exchange, process indicators, and clinical and physiological indicators. The effectiveness of PHRs is generally of low or very low quality, with the majority of studies having a high risk of bias. These studies do not demonstrate a significant benefit of introducing PHR. Conclusions There is no clear benefit of implementing a PHR, and due to medium to high risk of bias these findings should be interpreted with caution. More high quality studies are needed to evaluate properly the effectiveness of PHRs in chronic disease populations.

The SPIRIT Action Framework: A structured approach to selecting and testing strategies to increase the use of research in policy

The recent proliferation of strategies designed to increase the use of research in health policy (knowledge exchange) demands better application of contemporary conceptual understandings of how research shapes policy. Predictive models, or action frameworks, are needed to organise existing knowledge and enable a more systematic approach to the selection and testing of intervention strategies. Useful action frameworks need to meet four criteria: have a clearly articulated purpose; be informed by existing knowledge; provide an organising structure to build new knowledge; and be capable of guiding the development and testing of interventions. This paper describes the development of the SPIRIT Action Framework. A literature search and interviews with policy makers identified modifiable factors likely to influence the use of research in policy. An iterative process was used to combine these factors into a pragmatic tool which meets the four criteria. The SPIRIT Action Framework can guide conceptually-informed practical decisions in the selection and testing of interventions to increase the use of research in policy. The SPIRIT Action Framework hypothesises that a catalyst is required for the use of research, the response to which is determined by the capacity of the organisation to engage with research. Where there is sufficient capacity, a series of research engagement actions might occur that facilitate research use. These hypotheses are being tested in ongoing empirical work.

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.

Subcutaneous dextrose for rehydration of elderly patients--an evidence-based review.

BackgroundIn the Rehabilitation and Aged Care Services Program at Southern Health in Victoria, saline hypodermoclysis is a relatively common method of rehydration. However, there were questions about the safety and effectiveness of subcutaneous infusion of other fluids and, in particular, dextrose solutions. This review aimed to assess the safety and effectiveness of rehydration of elderly patients with subcutaneous 5% dextrose solutions compared with intravenous 5% dextrose solutions.MethodsWe searched the Cochrane Library, Medline, IDIS, CINAHL, Current Contents, Premedline, Australasian Medical Index, the Joanna Briggs Institute, the US National Guideline Clearinghouse and bibliographies of retrieved articles. Searching was undertaken in July 2003. Studies selected were primary studies (or systematic reviews of primary studies) providing evidence as to the effectiveness and safety of subcutaneous infusion of dextrose solutions for rehydration of elderly patients. We included articles published in English in the last 10 years. Data were extracted by a single researcher.ResultsFrom our search we identified 15 potentially relevant articles. We obtained the full text of these articles to determine their relevance. After application of the inclusion criteria, four articles remained for appraisal including one systematic review, two randomised controlled trials and one cohort study.ConclusionThe four studies appraised all provide evidence that appropriate volumes of subcutaneous dextrose infusions (in the form of half-normal saline-glucose 5%, 40 g/L dextrose and 30 mmol/L NaCl, or 5% dextrose solution and 4 g/L NaCl, or two-thirds 5% glucose and one-third normal saline) can be used effectively for the treatment of dehydration, with similar rates of adverse effects to intravenous infusion. The evidence in this area is limited, and larger randomised controlled trials using validated outcome measures would be useful to confirm these results.

Development and validation of SEER (Seeking, Engaging with and Evaluating Research): a measure of policymakers’ capacity to engage with and use research

BackgroundCapacity building strategies are widely used to increase the use of research in policy development. However, a lack of well-validated measures for policy contexts has hampered efforts to identify priorities for capacity building and to evaluate the impact of strategies. We aimed to address this gap by developing SEER (Seeking, Engaging with and Evaluating Research), a self-report measure of individual policymakers’ capacity to engage with and use research.MethodsWe used the SPIRIT Action Framework to identify pertinent domains and guide development of items for measuring each domain. Scales covered (1) individual capacity to use research (confidence in using research, value placed on research, individual perceptions of the value their organisation places on research, supporting tools and systems), (2) actions taken to engage with research and researchers, and (3) use of research to inform policy (extent and type of research use). A sample of policymakers engaged in health policy development provided data to examine scale reliability (internal consistency, test-retest) and validity (relation to measures of similar concepts, relation to a measure of intention to use research, internal structure of the individual capacity scales).ResultsResponse rates were 55% (150/272 people, 12 agencies) for the validity and internal consistency analyses, and 54% (57/105 people, 9 agencies) for test-retest reliability. The individual capacity scales demonstrated adequate internal consistency reliability (alpha coefficients > 0.7, all four scales) and test-retest reliability (intra-class correlation coefficients > 0.7 for three scales and 0.59 for fourth scale). Scores on individual capacity scales converged as predicted with measures of similar concepts (moderate correlations of > 0.4), and confirmatory factor analysis provided evidence that the scales measured related but distinct concepts. Items in each of these four scales related as predicted to concepts in the measurement model derived from the SPIRIT Action Framework. Evidence about the reliability and validity of the research engagement actions and research use scales was equivocal.ConclusionsInitial testing of SEER suggests that the four individual capacity scales may be used in policy settings to examine current capacity and identify areas for capacity building. The relation between capacity, research engagement actions and research use requires further investigation.

Influence of training in the use and generation of evidence on episiotomy practice and perineal trauma

To examine episiotomy practices before and after a multi‐component intervention designed to support the use and generation of research evidence in maternal and neonatal health care.

Improving capacity for evidence-based practice in South East Asia: evaluating the role of research fellowships in the SEA-ORCHID Project

BackgroundFellowships are a component of many professional education programs. They provide opportunities to develop skills and competencies in an environment where time is protected and resources and technical support are more readily available. The SEA-ORCHID fellowships program aimed to increase capacity for evidence-based practice and research synthesis, and to encourage fellows to become leaders in these areas.MethodsFellows included doctors, nurses, midwives and librarians working in the maternal and neonatal areas of nine hospitals in South East Asia. Fellowships were undertaken in Australia and involved specific outputs related to evidence-based practice or research synthesis. Training and support was tailored according to the type of output and the fellows experience and expertise. We evaluated the fellowships program quantitatively and qualitatively through written evaluations, interviews and follow-up of fellowship activities.ResultsDuring 2006-07, 23 fellows from Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines undertook short-term fellowships (median four weeks) in Australia. The main outputs were drafts of Cochrane systematic reviews, clinical practice guidelines and protocols for randomised trials, and training materials to support evidence-based practice. Protocols for Cochrane systematic reviews were more likely to be completed than other outcomes. The fellows identified several components that were critical to the programs overall success; these included protected time, tailored training, and access to technical expertise and resources. On returning home, fellows identified a lack of time and limited access to the internet and evidence-based resources as barriers to completing their outputs. The support of colleagues and senior staff was noted as an important enabler of progress, and research collaborators from other institutions and countries were also important sources of support.ConclusionsThe SEA-ORCHID fellowships program provided protected time to work on an output which would facilitate evidence-based practice. While the fellows faced substantial barriers to completing their fellowship outputs once they returned home, these fellowships resulted in a greater understanding, enthusiasm and skills for evidence-based practice. The experience of the SEA-ORCHID fellowships program may be useful for other initiatives aiming to build capacity in evidence-based practice.

Developing definitions for a knowledge exchange intervention in health policy and program agencies: reflections on process and value

The development of definitions is an integral part of the research process but is often poorly described. This paper details the iterative development of five definitions: Policy, Health policy-maker, Health policy agency, Policy documents, and Research findings. We describe the challenges of developing definitions in a large multidisciplinary team and the important methodological repercussions. We identify four factors that were most helpful in this process: (1) An emphasis on fit-for-purpose functionality, (2) Consultation with in-context experts, (3) Our willingness to amend terms as well as definitions, and to revisit some methods and goals as a consequence, and (4) Agreement that we would satisfice: accept ‘good enough’ solutions rather than struggle for optimality and consensus.