Jane Goodfellow1,2, Shona Agarwal1, Fawn Harrad1, David Shepherd3, Tom Morris4, Arne Ring1,5, Nicola Walker1, Stephen Rogers1,6, Richard Baker7. 1. Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, 22-28 Princess Road West, Leicester, LE1 6TP, UK. 2. Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Coventry University, Richard Crossman Building, Priory Street, Coventry, CV1 5FB, UK. 3. Saffron Group Practice, 509 Saffron Lane, Leicester, Leicester, UK. 4. Leicester Clinical Trials Unit, Diabetes Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester General Hospital, Gwendolen Road, Leicester, LE5 4PW, UK. 5. Department of Mathematical Statistics and Actuarial Science, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, 9300, South Africa. 6. Clinical Lead for Applied Health Research Northamptonshire Healthcare Foundation Trust, Berrywood Hospital, Northampton, NN5 6UD, UK. 7. Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, 22-28 Princess Road West, Leicester, LE1 6TP, UK. rb14@leicester.ac.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tailoring is a frequent component of approaches for implementing clinical practice guidelines, although evidence on how to maximise the effectiveness of tailoring is limited. In England, overweight and obesity are common, and national guidelines have been produced by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. However, the guidelines are not routinely followed in primary care. METHODS: A tailored implementation intervention was developed following an analysis of the determinants of practice influencing the implementation of the guidelines on obesity and the selection of strategies to address the determinants. General practices in the East Midlands of England were invited to take part in a cluster randomised controlled trial of the intervention. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of overweight or obese patients offered a weight loss intervention. Secondary outcomes were the proportions of patients with (1) a BMI or waist circumference recorded, (2) record of lifestyle assessment, (3) referred to weight loss services, and (4) any change in weight during the study period. We also assessed the mean weight change over the study period. Follow-up was for 9 months after the intervention. A process evaluation was undertaken, involving interviews of samples of participating health professionals. RESULTS: There were 16 general practices in the control group, and 12 in the intervention group. At follow-up, 15.08 % in the control group and 13.19 % in the intervention group had been offered a weight loss intervention, odds ratio (OR) 1.16, 95 % confidence interval (CI) (0.72, 1.89). BMI/waist circumference measurement 42.71 % control, 39.56 % intervention, OR 1.15 (CI 0.89, 1.48), referral to weight loss services 5.10 % control, 3.67 % intervention, OR 1.45 (CI 0.81, 2.63), weight management in the practice 9.59 % control, 8.73 % intervention, OR 1.09 (CI 0.55, 2.15), lifestyle assessment 23.05 % control, 23.86 % intervention, OR 0.98 (CI 0.76, 1.26), weight loss of at least 1 kg 42.22 % control, 41.65 % intervention, OR 0.98 (CI 0.87, 1.09). Health professionals reported the interventions as increasing their confidence in managing obesity and providing them with practical resources. CONCLUSIONS: The tailored intervention did not improve the implementation of the guidelines on obesity, despite systematic approaches to the identification of the determinants of practice. The methods of tailoring require further development to ensure that interventions target those determinants that most influence implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN07457585.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Tailoring is a frequent component of approaches for implementing clinical practice guidelines, although evidence on how to maximise the effectiveness of tailoring is limited. In England, overweight and obesity are common, and national guidelines have been produced by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. However, the guidelines are not routinely followed in primary care. METHODS: A tailored implementation intervention was developed following an analysis of the determinants of practice influencing the implementation of the guidelines on obesity and the selection of strategies to address the determinants. General practices in the East Midlands of England were invited to take part in a cluster randomised controlled trial of the intervention. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of overweight or obesepatients offered a weight loss intervention. Secondary outcomes were the proportions of patients with (1) a BMI or waist circumference recorded, (2) record of lifestyle assessment, (3) referred to weight loss services, and (4) any change in weight during the study period. We also assessed the mean weight change over the study period. Follow-up was for 9 months after the intervention. A process evaluation was undertaken, involving interviews of samples of participating health professionals. RESULTS: There were 16 general practices in the control group, and 12 in the intervention group. At follow-up, 15.08 % in the control group and 13.19 % in the intervention group had been offered a weight loss intervention, odds ratio (OR) 1.16, 95 % confidence interval (CI) (0.72, 1.89). BMI/waist circumference measurement 42.71 % control, 39.56 % intervention, OR 1.15 (CI 0.89, 1.48), referral to weight loss services 5.10 % control, 3.67 % intervention, OR 1.45 (CI 0.81, 2.63), weight management in the practice 9.59 % control, 8.73 % intervention, OR 1.09 (CI 0.55, 2.15), lifestyle assessment 23.05 % control, 23.86 % intervention, OR 0.98 (CI 0.76, 1.26), weight loss of at least 1 kg 42.22 % control, 41.65 % intervention, OR 0.98 (CI 0.87, 1.09). Health professionals reported the interventions as increasing their confidence in managing obesity and providing them with practical resources. CONCLUSIONS: The tailored intervention did not improve the implementation of the guidelines on obesity, despite systematic approaches to the identification of the determinants of practice. The methods of tailoring require further development to ensure that interventions target those determinants that most influence implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN07457585.
Authors: J M Grimshaw; R E Thomas; G MacLennan; C Fraser; C R Ramsay; L Vale; P Whitty; M P Eccles; L Matowe; L Shirran; M Wensing; R Dijkstra; C Donaldson Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Jennifer Medves; Christina Godfrey; Carly Turner; Margo Paterson; Margaret Harrison; Lindsay MacKenzie; Paola Durando Journal: Int J Evid Based Healthc Date: 2010-06
Authors: Anik Giguère; France Légaré; Jeremy Grimshaw; Stéphane Turcotte; Michelle Fiander; Agnes Grudniewicz; Sun Makosso-Kallyth; Fredric M Wolf; Anna P Farmer; Marie-Pierre Gagnon Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2012-10-17
Authors: Michel Wensing; Andy Oxman; Richard Baker; Maciek Godycki-Cwirko; Signe Flottorp; Joachim Szecsenyi; Jeremy Grimshaw; Martin Eccles Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2011-09-07 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Louise Forsetlund; Arild Bjørndal; Arash Rashidian; Gro Jamtvedt; Mary Ann O'Brien; Fredric Wolf; Dave Davis; Jan Odgaard-Jensen; Andrew D Oxman Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2009-04-15
Authors: Helen Moore; Carolyn D Summerbell; Darren C Greenwood; Philip Tovey; Jacqui Griffiths; Maureen Henderson; Kate Hesketh; Sally Woolgar; Ashley J Adamson Journal: BMJ Date: 2003-11-08
Authors: Cindy M Gray; Kate Hunt; Karen Lorimer; Annie S Anderson; Michaela Benzeval; Sally Wyke Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2011-06-29 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Atle Fretheim; Andrew D Oxman; Kari Håvelsrud; Shaun Treweek; Doris T Kristoffersen; Arild Bjørndal Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: C Jäger; J Steinhäuser; T Freund; R Baker; S Agarwal; M Godycki-Cwirko; A Kowalczyk; E Aakhus; I Granlund; J van Lieshout; J Szecsenyi; M Wensing Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2016-09-13 Impact factor: 7.327