Susanne Unverzagt1, Matthias Oemler2, Kristin Braun2, Andreas Klement2. 1. Institute of Medical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Informatics and susanne.unverzagt@medizin.uni-halle.de. 2. Section of General Practice, Institute of Medical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Informatics, University Halle/Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Guidelines should reduce inappropriate practice and improve the efficiency of treatment. Not only methodological quality but also acceptance and successful implementation in daily practice are crucial for the benefit on patients. Focusing on cardiovascular diseases (CVD), it is still unclear which implementation strategy can improve physician adherence to the recommendations of guidelines in primary care. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review on randomized controlled trials about guideline implementation strategies on CVD. Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, conference proceedings and registers of ongoing studies were searched. RESULTS: Eighty-four trials met our predefined inclusion criteria, of them 54 trials compared unimodal strategies and 30 multimodal strategies to usual care. Concerning unimodal strategies, 15 trials investigated provider reminder systems, 3 audit and feedback, 15 provider education, 4 patient education, 5 promotion of self-management and 14 organizational change. The strongest benefit of a unimodal implementation strategy was found due to organizational change (odds ratio 1.96; 95% CI 1.4 to 2.75), followed by patient education, provider education and provider reminder systems. Trials on the efficacy of audit and feedback and patient self-management showed differing results or small advantages in terms of physician adherence. Multimodal interventions showed almost similar effect measures and ranking of strategies. CONCLUSION: The use of implementation strategies for the distribution of guidelines on CVD can be convincingly effective on physician adherence, regardless whether based on a unimodal or multimodal design. Three distinct strategies should be well considered in such an attempt: organizational changes in the primary care team, patient education and provider education.
BACKGROUND: Guidelines should reduce inappropriate practice and improve the efficiency of treatment. Not only methodological quality but also acceptance and successful implementation in daily practice are crucial for the benefit on patients. Focusing on cardiovascular diseases (CVD), it is still unclear which implementation strategy can improve physician adherence to the recommendations of guidelines in primary care. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review on randomized controlled trials about guideline implementation strategies on CVD. Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, conference proceedings and registers of ongoing studies were searched. RESULTS: Eighty-four trials met our predefined inclusion criteria, of them 54 trials compared unimodal strategies and 30 multimodal strategies to usual care. Concerning unimodal strategies, 15 trials investigated provider reminder systems, 3 audit and feedback, 15 provider education, 4 patient education, 5 promotion of self-management and 14 organizational change. The strongest benefit of a unimodal implementation strategy was found due to organizational change (odds ratio 1.96; 95% CI 1.4 to 2.75), followed by patient education, provider education and provider reminder systems. Trials on the efficacy of audit and feedback and patient self-management showed differing results or small advantages in terms of physician adherence. Multimodal interventions showed almost similar effect measures and ranking of strategies. CONCLUSION: The use of implementation strategies for the distribution of guidelines on CVD can be convincingly effective on physician adherence, regardless whether based on a unimodal or multimodal design. Three distinct strategies should be well considered in such an attempt: organizational changes in the primary care team, patient education and provider education.
Authors: Eva Kovacs; Ralf Strobl; Amanda Phillips; Anna-Janina Stephan; Martin Müller; Jochen Gensichen; Eva Grill Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-05-04 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Bhupendrasinh F Chauhan; Maya M Jeyaraman; Amrinder Singh Mann; Justin Lys; Becky Skidmore; Kathryn M Sibley; Ahmed M Abou-Setta; Ryan Zarychanski Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2017-01-05 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Rachel Gold; Arwen Bunce; Stuart Cowburn; James V Davis; Celine Hollombe; Christine A Nelson; Jon Puro; John Muench; Christian Hill; Victoria Jaworski; MaryBeth Mercer; Colleen Howard; Nancy Perrin; Jennifer DeVoe Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2017-04-05 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Deepti Shanbhag; Ian D Graham; Karen Harlos; R Brian Haynes; Itzhak Gabizon; Stuart J Connolly; Harriette Gillian Christine Van Spall Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-03-06 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Rebecca A Jeffery; Matthew J To; Gabrielle Hayduk-Costa; Adam Cameron; Cameron Taylor; Colin Van Zoost; Jill A Hayden Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2015-10-22 Impact factor: 2.497