A multifaceted knowledge translation strategy can increase compliance with guideline recommendations for mechanical bowel preparation

Roles and effectiveness of knowledge brokers for translating clinical practice guidelines in health-related settings: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Poor translation of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) into clinical practice is a barrier to the provision of consistent and high-quality evidence-based care. The objective was to systematically review the roles and effectiveness of knowledge brokers (KBs) for translating CPGs in health-related settings.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL Plus were searched from 2014 to June 2022. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled and uncontrolled preintervention and postintervention studies involving KBs, either alone or as part of a multicomponent intervention, that reported quantitative postintervention changes in guideline implementation in a healthcare setting were included. A KB was defined as an intermediary who facilitated knowledge translation by acting in at least two of the following core roles: knowledge manager, linkage agent or capacity builder. Specific activities undertaken by KBs were deductively coded to the three core roles, then common activities were inductively grouped. Screening, data extraction, quality assessment and coding were performed independently by two authors.

RESULTS

16 studies comprising 6 RCTs, 8 uncontrolled precomparisons-postcomparisons, 1 controlled precomparison-postcomparison and 1 interrupted time series were included. 14 studies (88%) were conducted in hospital settings. Knowledge manager roles included creating and distributing guideline material. Linkage agent roles involved engaging with internal and external stakeholders. Capacity builder roles involved audit and feedback and educating staff. KBs improved guideline adherence in 10 studies (63%), had mixed impact in 2 studies (13%) and no impact in 4 studies (25%). Half of the RCTs showed KBs had no impact on guideline adherence. KBs acted as knowledge managers in 15 (94%) studies, linkage agents in 11 (69%) studies and capacity builders in all studies.

CONCLUSION

Knowledge manager and capacity builder roles were more frequently studied than linkage agent roles. KBs had mixed impact on translating CPGs into practice. Further RCTs, including those in non-hospital settings, are required.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022340365.

Inappropriate use of clinical practices in Canada: a systematic review

Background:

Inappropriate health care leads to negative patient experiences, poor health outcomes and inefficient use of resources. We aimed to conduct a systematic review of inappropriately used clinical practices in Canada.

Methods:

We searched multiple bibliometric databases and grey literature to identify inappropriately used clinical practices in Canada between 2007 and 2021. Two team members independently screened citations, extracted data and assessed methodological quality. Findings were synthesized in 2 categories: diagnostics and therapeutics. We reported ranges of proportions of inappropriate use for all practices. Medians and interquartile ranges (IQRs), based on the percentage of patients not receiving recommended practices (underuse) or receiving practices not recommended (overuse), were calculated. All statistics are at the study summary level.

Results:

We included 174 studies, representing 228 clinical practices and 28 900 762 patients. The median proportion of inappropriate care, as assessed in the studies, was 30.0% (IQR 12.0%–56.6%). Underuse (median 43.9%, IQR 23.8%–66.3%) was more frequent than overuse (median 13.6%, IQR 3.2%–30.7%). The most frequently investigated diagnostics were glycated hemoglobin (underused, range 18.0%–85.7%, n = 9) and thyroid-stimulating hormone (overused, range 3.0%–35.1%, n = 5). The most frequently investigated therapeutics were statin medications (underused, range 18.5%–71.0%, n = 6) and potentially inappropriate medications (overused, range 13.5%–97.3%, n = 9).

Interpretation:

We have provided a summary of inappropriately used clinical practices in Canadian health care systems. Our findings can be used to support health care professionals and quality agencies to improve patient care and safety in Canada.

Local opinion leaders: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes

BACKGROUND

Clinical practice is not always evidence-based and, therefore, may not optimise patient outcomes. Local opinion leaders (OLs) are individuals perceived as credible and trustworthy, who disseminate and implement best evidence, for instance through informal one-to-one teaching or community outreach education visits. The use of OLs is a promising strategy to bridge evidence-practice gaps. This is an update of a Cochrane review published in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of local opinion leaders to improve healthcare professionals' compliance with evidence-based practice and patient outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases and two trials registers on 3 July 2018, together with searching reference lists of included studies and contacting experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomised studies comparing the effects of local opinion leaders, either alone or with a single or more intervention(s) to disseminate evidence-based practice, with no intervention, a single intervention, or the same single or more intervention(s). Eligible studies were those reporting objective measures of professional performance, for example, the percentage of patients being prescribed a specific drug or health outcomes, or both. We included all studies independently of the method used to identify OLs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane procedures in this review. The main comparison was (i) between any intervention involving OLs (OLs alone, OLs with a single or more intervention(s)) versus any comparison intervention (no intervention, a single intervention, or the same single or more intervention(s)). We also made four secondary comparisons: ii) OLs alone versus no intervention, iii) OLs alone versus a single intervention, iv) OLs, with a single or more intervention(s) versus the same single or more intervention(s), and v) OLs with a single or more intervention(s) versus no intervention.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 24 studies, involving more than 337 hospitals, 350 primary care practices, 3005 healthcare professionals, and 29,167 patients (not all studies reported this information). A majority of studies were from North America, and all were conducted in high-income countries. Eighteen of these studies (21 comparisons, 71 compliance outcomes) contributed to the median adjusted risk difference (RD) for the main comparison. The median duration of follow-up was 12 months (range 2 to 30 months). The results suggested that the OL interventions probably improve healthcare professionals' compliance with evidence-based practice (10.8% absolute improvement in compliance, interquartile range (IQR): 3.5% to 14.6%; moderate-certainty evidence).Results for the secondary comparisons also suggested that OLs probably improve compliance with evidence-based practice (moderate-certainty evidence): i) OLs alone versus no intervention: RD (IQR): 9.15% (-0.3% to 15%); ii) OLs alone versus a single intervention: RD (range): 13.8% (12% to 15.5%); iii) OLs, with a single or more intervention(s) versus the same single or more intervention(s): RD (IQR): 7.1% (-1.4% to 19%); iv) OLs with a single or more intervention(s) versus no intervention: RD (IQR):10.25% (0.6% to 15.75%).It is uncertain if OLs alone, or in combination with other intervention(s), may lead to improved patient outcomes (3 studies; 5 dichotomous outcomes) since the certainty of evidence was very low. For two of the secondary comparisons, the IQR included the possibility of a small negative effect of the OL intervention. Possible explanations for the occasional negative effects are, for example, the possibility that the OLs may have prioritised some outcomes, at the expense of others, or that an unaccounted outcome difference at baseline, may have given a faulty impression of a negative effect of the intervention at follow-up. No study reported on costs or cost-effectiveness.We were unable to determine the comparative effectiveness of different approaches to identifying OLs, as most studies used the sociometric method. Nor could we determine which methods used by OLs to educate their peers were most effective, as the methods were poorly described in most studies. In addition, we could not determine whether OL teams were more effective than single OLs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Local opinion leaders alone, or in combination with other interventions, can be effective in promoting evidence-based practice, but the effectiveness varies both within and between studies.The effect on patient outcomes is uncertain. The costs and the cost-effectiveness of the intervention(s) is unknown. These results are based on heterogeneous studies differing in types of intervention, setting, and outcomes. In most studies, the role and actions of the OL were not clearly described, and we cannot, therefore, comment on strategies to enhance their effectiveness. It is also not clear whether the methods used to identify OLs are important for their effectiveness, or whether the effect differs if education is delivered by single OLs or by multidisciplinary OL teams. Further research may help us to understand how these factors affect the effectiveness of OLs.

Facilitation roles and characteristics associated with research use by healthcare professionals: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Implementing research findings into practice is a complex process that is not well understood. Facilitation has been described as a key component of getting research findings into practice. The literature on facilitation as a practice innovation is growing. This review aimed to identify facilitator roles and to describe characteristics of facilitation that may be associated with successful research use by healthcare professionals.

METHODS

We searched 10 electronic databases up to December 2016 and used predefined criteria to select articles. We included conceptual papers and empirical studies that described facilitator roles, facilitation processes or interventions, and that focused on healthcare professionals and research use. We used content and thematic analysis to summarise data. Rogers' five main attributes of an innovation guided our synthesis of facilitation characteristics.

RESULTS

Of the 38 488 articles identified from our online and manual search, we included 195 predominantly research studies. We identified nine facilitator roles: opinion leaders, coaches, champions, research facilitators, clinical/practice facilitators, outreach facilitators, linking agents, knowledge brokers and external-internal facilitators. Fifteen facilitation characteristics were associated with research use, which we grouped into five categories using Rogers' innovation attributes: relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability and observability.

CONCLUSIONS

We found a diverse and broad literature on the concept of facilitation that can expand our current thinking about facilitation as an innovation and its potential to support an integrated, collaborative approach to improving healthcare delivery.