Ursula Reichenpfader

Leadership in evidence-based practice: a systematic review

PURPOSE This study aims to systematically review published empirical research on leadership as a determinant for the implementation of evidence-based practice (EBP) and to investigate leadership conceptualization and operationalization in this field. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH A systematic review with narrative synthesis was conducted. Relevant electronic bibliographic databases and reference lists of pertinent review articles were searched. To be included, a study had to involve empirical research and refer to both leadership and EBP in health care. Study quality was assessed with a structured instrument based on study design. FINDINGS A total of 17 studies were included. Leadership was mostly viewed as a modifier for implementation success, acting through leadership support. Yet, there was definitional imprecision as well as conceptual inconsistency, and studies seemed to inadequately address situational and contextual factors. Although referring to an organizational factor, the concept was mostly analysed at the individual or group level. RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS The concept of leadership in implementation science seems to be not fully developed. It is unclear whether attempts to tap the concept of leadership in available instruments truly capture and measure the full range of the diverse leadership elements at various levels. Research in implementation science would benefit from a better integration of research findings from other disciplinary fields. Once a more mature concept has been established, researchers in implementation science could proceed to further elaborate operationalization and measurement. ORIGINALITY/VALUE Although the relevance of leadership in implementation science has been acknowledged, the conceptual base of leadership in this field has received only limited attention.

Comparative Benefits and Harms of Second-generation Antidepressants in the Pharmacologic Treatment of Depression in Older Adults: Systematic Revview and Network Meta-analysis

Introduction Second-generation antidepressants dominate the medical management of major depressive disorder (MDD). Some have questioned whether these medications are equally effective in older adults. Objectives To compare the benefits and harms of bupropion, citalopram, desvenlafaxine, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, levomilnacipran, mirtazapine, nefazodone, paroxetine, sertraline, trazodone, venlafaxine, vilazodone, and vortioxetine for the treatment of MDD in older adults and to assess whether efficacy differed in older adults compared with the adults of all ages. Methods To identify relevant studies, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, and CINAHL through December, 2014. Two persons independently reviewed the literature, abstracted data, and rated the risk of bias. We conducted mixed treatment comparisons to derive indirect estimates of the comparative efficacy among all second-generation antidepressants and we conducted meta-regression by assessing whether efficacy differed in trials that enrolled older adults compared with trials that enrolled adults of any age. The outcome was treatment response as measured by ≥50% improvement from baseline on the HAM-D. Results Evidence on older adults compared with adults of any age is sparse. In older adults, evidence indicates that efficacy does not differ substantially among second-generation antidepressants; however, there may be some differences in adverse events. Our meta-regression found a trend toward lesser efficacy of SGAs in older adults than adults of any age. Conclusions Our findings suggests that SGAs may be less effective in older populations. There is a great need for research focusing directly on the efficacy and safety of SGAs in older adults.