Literature DB >> 24443146

Implementation of treatment guidelines for specialist mental health care.

Corrado Barbui1, Francesca Girlanda, Esra Ay, Andrea Cipriani, Thomas Becker, Markus Koesters.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A huge gap exists between the production of evidence and its take-up in clinical practice settings. To fill this gap, treatment guidelines, based on explicit assessments of the evidence base, are commonly employed in several fields of medicine, including schizophrenia and related psychotic disorders. It remains unclear, however, whether treatment guidelines have any impact on provider performance and patient outcomes, and how implementation should be conducted to maximise benefit.
OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this review was to examine the efficacy of guideline implementation strategies in improving process outcomes (performance of healthcare providers) and patient outcomes. We additionally explored which components of different guideline implementation strategies can influence process and patient outcomes. SEARCH
METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Register (March 2012), as well as references of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies that examined schizophrenia-spectrum disorders to compare guideline implementation strategies with usual care or to assess the comparative efficacy of different guideline implementation strategies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors worked independently and in duplicate to critically appraise records from 882 studies; five individual studies met the inclusion criteria and were considered. As critical appraisal of the five included studies revealed substantial heterogeneity in terms of focus of the guideline, target of the intervention, implementation strategy and outcome measures, meta-analysis was carried out for antipsychotic co-prescribing only. MAIN
RESULTS: Of the five included studies, practitioner impact was assessed in three. The five studies were generally at unclear risk of bias, and all evidence in the 'Summary of findings' table was graded by review authors as of very low quality. Meta-analysis of two studies revealed that a combination of several guideline dissemination and implementation strategies targeting healthcare professionals did not reduce antipsychotic co-prescribing in schizophrenia outpatients (two studies, n = 1,082, risk ratio (RR) 1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99 to 1.23; corrected for cluster design: n = 310, RR 0.97, CI 0.75 to 1.25). One trial, which studied a nurse-led intervention aimed at promoting cardiovascular disease screening, found a significant effect in terms of the proportion of people receiving screening (blood pressure: n = 96, RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.28; cholesterol: n = 103, RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.70; glucose: n = 103, RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.82; BMI: n = 99, RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.60; smoking status: n = 96, RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.64; Framingham score: n = 110, RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.87), although in the analysis corrected for cluster design, the effect was statistically significant for blood pressure and cholesterol only (blood pressure, corrected for cluster design: n = 33, RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.74; cholesterol, corrected for cluster design: n = 35, RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.99; glucose, corrected for cluster design: n = 35, RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.21; BMI, corrected for cluster design: n = 34, RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.37; smoking status, corrected for cluster design: n = 32, RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.03; Framingham score, corrected for cluster design: n = 38, RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.03; very low quality). Regarding participant outcomes, one trial assessed the efficacy of a shared decision-making implementation strategy and found no impact in terms of psychopathology, satisfaction with care and drug attitude. Another single trial studied a multifaceted intervention to promote medication adherence and found no impact in terms of adherence rates. AUTHORS'
CONCLUSIONS: With only five studies meeting inclusion criteria, and with limited low or very low quality usable information, it is not possible to arrive at definitive conclusions. The preliminary pattern of evidence suggests that, although small changes in psychiatric practice have been demonstrated, uncertainty remains in terms of clinically meaningful and sustainable effects of treatment guidelines on patient outcomes and how best to implement such guidelines for maximal benefit.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24443146     DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009780.pub2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev        ISSN: 1361-6137


  15 in total

Review 1.  [Treatment pathways in the care of patients with schizophrenia and depression].

Authors:  H J Salize; E Voß; A Werner; P Falkai; I Hauth
Journal:  Nervenarzt       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 1.214

2.  Mapping actions to improve access to medicines for mental disorders in low and middle income countries.

Authors:  C Barbui; T Dua; K Kolappa; B Saraceno; S Saxena
Journal:  Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci       Date:  2017-01-09       Impact factor: 6.892

Review 3.  Implementation of treatment guidelines for specialist mental health care.

Authors:  Irene Bighelli; Giovanni Ostuzzi; Francesca Girlanda; Andrea Cipriani; Thomas Becker; Markus Koesters; Corrado Barbui
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2016-12-15

Review 4.  [Methodology of the guideline update on bipolar disorders and perspective on future updates].

Authors:  B Soltmann; A Pfennig; M Bauer
Journal:  Nervenarzt       Date:  2020-03       Impact factor: 1.214

Review 5.  Implementation of treatment guidelines for specialist mental health care.

Authors:  Corrado Barbui; Francesca Girlanda; Esra Ay; Andrea Cipriani; Thomas Becker; Markus Koesters
Journal:  Schizophr Bull       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 9.306

6.  The feasibility of implementing recovery, psychosocial and pharmacological interventions for psychosis: comparison study.

Authors:  Lian van der Krieke; Victoria Bird; Mary Leamy; Faye Bacon; Rebecca Dunn; Francesca Pesola; Monika Janosik; Clair Le Boutillier; Julie Williams; Mike Slade
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2015-05-23       Impact factor: 7.327

Review 7.  Implementing psychosocial evidence-based practices in mental health: are we moving in the right direction?

Authors:  Alfonso González-Valderrama; Cristián Mena; Juan Undurraga; Carlos Gallardo; Pilar Mondaca
Journal:  Front Psychiatry       Date:  2015-04-14       Impact factor: 4.157

Review 8.  Evidence-based guideline implementation in low and middle income countries: lessons for mental health care.

Authors:  Mary Docherty; Kate Shaw; Lucy Goulding; Hannah Parke; Erica Eassom; Farnoosh Ali; Graham Thornicroft
Journal:  Int J Ment Health Syst       Date:  2017-01-05

9.  Implementation of a clinical practice guideline for schizophrenia in a specialist mental health center: an observational study.

Authors:  Ilan Fischler; Sanaz Riahi; Melanie I Stuckey; Philip E Klassen
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2016-08-11       Impact factor: 2.655

10.  Acting on audit & feedback: a qualitative instrumental case study in mental health services in Norway.

Authors:  Monica Stolt Pedersen; Anne Landheim; Merete Møller; Lars Lien
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2018-01-31       Impact factor: 2.655

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.