27
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      What maximizes the effectiveness and implementation of technology-based interventions to support healthcare professional practice? A systematic literature review

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Technological support may be crucial in optimizing healthcare professional practice and improving patient outcomes. A focus on electronic health records has left other technological supports relatively neglected. Additionally, there has been no comparison between different types of technology-based interventions, and the importance of delivery setting on the implementation of technology-based interventions to change professional practice. Consequently, there is a need to synthesise and examine intervention characteristics using a methodology suited to identifying important features of effective interventions, and the barriers and facilitators to implementation. Three aims were addressed: to identify interventions with a technological component that are successful at changing professional practice, to determine if and how such interventions are theory-based, and to examine barriers and facilitators to successful implementation.

          Methods

          A literature review informed by realist review methods was conducted involving a systematic search of studies reporting either: (1) behavior change interventions that included technology to support professional practice change; or (2) barriers and facilitators to implementation of technological interventions. Extracted data was quantitative and qualitative, and included setting, target professionals, and use of Behaviour Change Techniques (BCTs). The primary outcome was a change in professional practice. A thematic analysis was conducted on studies reporting barriers and facilitators of implementation.

          Results

          Sixty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria; 48 (27 randomized controlled trials) reported behavior change interventions and 21 reported practicalities of implementation. The most successful technological intervention was decision support providing healthcare professionals with knowledge and/or person-specific information to assist with patient management. Successful technologies were more likely to operationalise BCTs, particularly “instruction on how to perform the behavior”. Facilitators of implementation included aligning studies with organisational initiatives, ensuring senior peer endorsement, and integration into clinical workload. Barriers included organisational challenges, and design, content and technical issues of technology-based interventions.

          Conclusions

          Technological interventions must focus on providing decision support for clinical practice using recognized behavior change techniques. Interventions must consider organizational context, clinical workload, and have clearly defined benefits for improving practice and patient outcomes.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (10.1186/s12911-018-0661-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references77

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Promoting professional behaviour change in healthcare: what interventions work, and why? A theory-led overview of systematic reviews

          Objectives Translating research evidence into routine clinical practice is notoriously difficult. Behavioural interventions are often used to change practice, although their success is variable and the characteristics of more successful interventions are unclear. We aimed to establish the characteristics of successful behaviour change interventions in healthcare. Design We carried out a systematic overview of systematic reviews on the effectiveness of behaviour change interventions with a theory-led analysis using the constructs of normalisation process theory (NPT). MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsychINFO and the Cochrane Library were searched electronically from inception to July 2015. Setting Primary and secondary care. Participants Participants were any patients and healthcare professionals in systematic reviews who met the inclusion criteria of having examined the effectiveness of professional interventions in improving professional practice and/or patient outcomes. Interventions Professional interventions as defined by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Review Group. Primary and secondary outcome measures Success of each intervention in changing practice or patient outcomes, and their mechanisms of action. Reviews were coded as to the interventions included, how successful they had been and which NPT constructs its component interventions covered. Results Searches identified 4724 articles, 67 of which met the inclusion criteria. Interventions fell into three main categories: persuasive; educational and informational; and action and monitoring. Interventions focusing on action or education (eg, Audit and Feedback, Reminders, Educational Outreach) acted on the NPT constructs of Collective Action and Reflexive Monitoring, and reviews using them tended to report more positive outcomes. Conclusions This theory-led analysis suggests that interventions which contribute to normative restructuring of practice, modifying peer group norms and expectations (eg, educational outreach) and relational restructuring, reinforcing modified peer group norms by emphasising the expectations of an external reference group (eg, Reminders, Audit and Feedback), offer the best chances of success. Combining such interventions is most likely to change behaviour.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Effect of an outpatient antimicrobial stewardship intervention on broad-spectrum antibiotic prescribing by primary care pediatricians: a randomized trial.

            Antimicrobial stewardship programs have been effective for inpatients, often through prescribing audit and feedback. However, most antimicrobial use occurs in outpatients with acute respiratory tract infections (ARTIs). To evaluate the effect of an antimicrobial stewardship intervention on antibiotic prescribing for pediatric outpatients. Cluster randomized trial of outpatient antimicrobial stewardship comparing prescribing between intervention and control practices using a common electronic health record. After excluding children with chronic medical conditions, antibiotic allergies, and prior antibiotic use, we estimated prescribing rates for targeted ARTIs standardized for age, sex, race, and insurance from 20 months before the intervention to 12 months afterward (October 2008-June 2011). A network of 25 pediatric primary care practices in Pennsylvania and New Jersey; 18 practices (162 clinicians) participated. One 1-hour on-site clinician education session (June 2010) followed by 1 year of personalized, quarterly audit and feedback of prescribing for bacterial and viral ARTIs or usual practice. Rates of broad-spectrum (off-guideline) antibiotic prescribing for bacterial ARTIs and antibiotics for viral ARTIs for 1 year after the intervention. Broad-spectrum antibiotic prescribing decreased from 26.8% to 14.3% (absolute difference, 12.5%) among intervention practices vs from 28.4% to 22.6% (absolute difference, 5.8%) in controls (difference of differences [DOD], 6.7%; P = .01 for differences in trajectories). Off-guideline prescribing for children with pneumonia decreased from 15.7% to 4.2% among intervention practices compared with 17.1% to 16.3% in controls (DOD, 10.7%; P < .001) and for acute sinusitis from 38.9% to 18.8% in intervention practices and from 40.0% to 33.9% in controls (DOD, 14.0%; P = .12). Off-guideline prescribing was uncommon at baseline and changed little for streptococcal pharyngitis (intervention, from 4.4% to 3.4%; control, from 5.6% to 3.5%; DOD, -1.1%; P = .82) and for viral infections (intervention, from 7.9% to 7.7%; control, from 6.4% to 4.5%; DOD, -1.7%; P = .93). In this large pediatric primary care network, clinician education coupled with audit and feedback, compared with usual practice, improved adherence to prescribing guidelines for common bacterial ARTIs, and the intervention did not affect antibiotic prescribing for viral infections. Future studies should examine the drivers of these effects, as well as the generalizability, sustainability, and clinical outcomes of outpatient antimicrobial stewardship. clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01806103.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The impact of electronic health records on healthcare quality: a systematic review and meta-analysis

              To assess the impact of electronic health record (EHR) on healthcare quality, we hence carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies on this topic.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                +44 (0)161 275 2415 , chris.keyworth@manchester.ac.uk
                jo.hart@manchester.ac.uk
                chris.armitage@manchester.ac.uk
                mary.p.tully@manchester.ac.uk
                Journal
                BMC Med Inform Decis Mak
                BMC Med Inform Decis Mak
                BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
                BioMed Central (London )
                1472-6947
                7 November 2018
                7 November 2018
                2018
                : 18
                : 93
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000000121662407, GRID grid.5379.8, Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, , University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, ; Coupland 1 Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL UK
                [2 ]ISNI 0000000121662407, GRID grid.5379.8, Division of Medical Education, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, , University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Oxford Road, ; Manchester, M13 9PL UK
                [3 ]ISNI 0000000121662407, GRID grid.5379.8, Division of Pharmacy and Optometry, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, , University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, ; Stopford Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL UK
                [4 ]NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, M13 9PL UK
                [5 ]NIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, Manchester, UK
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7815-6174
                Article
                661
                10.1186/s12911-018-0661-3
                6223001
                30404638
                6d4592d9-a04c-4a77-8824-45631e59416b
                © The Author(s). 2018

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 27 March 2018
                : 27 September 2018
                Funding
                Funded by: University of Manchester Pump Priming
                Award ID: n/a
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2018

                Bioinformatics & Computational biology
                healthcare professional behaviour change,technology,realist review,intervention, ehealth

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content105

                Cited by53

                Most referenced authors1,530