34
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Effectiveness of strategies to improve health-care provider practices in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic 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.

          Summary

          Background

          Inadequate health-care provider performance is a major challenge to the delivery of high-quality health care in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). The Health Care Provider Performance Review (HCPPR) is a comprehensive systematic review of strategies to improve health-care provider performance in LMICs.

          Methods

          For this systematic review we searched 52 electronic databases for published studies and 58 document inventories for unpublished studies from the 1960s to 2016. Eligible study designs were controlled trials and interrupted time series. We only included strategy-versus-control group comparisons. We present results of improving health-care provider practice outcomes expressed as percentages (eg, percentage of patients treated correctly) or as continuous measures (eg, number of medicines prescribed per patient). Effect sizes were calculated as absolute percentage-point changes. The summary measure for each comparison was the median effect size (MES) for all primary outcomes. Strategy effectiveness was described with weighted medians of MES. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42016046154.

          Findings

          We screened 216 477 citations and selected 670 reports from 337 studies of 118 strategies. Most strategies had multiple intervention components. For professional health-care providers (generally, facility-based health workers), the effects were near zero for only implementing a technology-based strategy (median MES 1·0 percentage points, IQR −2·8 to 9·9) or only providing printed information for health-care providers (1·4 percentage points, −4·8 to 6·2). For percentage outcomes, training or supervision alone typically had moderate effects (10·3–15·9 percentage points), whereas combining training and supervision had somewhat larger effects than use of either strategy alone (18·0–18·8 percentage points). Group problem solving alone showed large improvements in percentage outcomes (28·0–37·5 percentage points), but, when the strategy definition was broadened to include group problem solving alone or other strategy components, moderate effects were more typical (12·1 percentage points). Several multifaceted strategies had large effects, but multifaceted strategies were not always more effective than simpler ones. For lay health-care providers (generally, community health workers), the effect of training alone was small (2·4 percentage points). Strategies with larger effect sizes included community support plus health-care provider training (8·2–125·0 percentage points). Contextual and methodological heterogeneity made comparisons difficult, and most strategies had low quality evidence.

          Interpretation

          The impact of strategies to improve health-care provider practices varied substantially, although some approaches were more consistently effective than others. The breadth of the HCPPR makes its results valuable to decision makers for informing the selection of strategies to improve health-care provider practices in LMICs. These results also emphasise the need for researchers to use better methods to study the effectiveness of interventions.

          Funding

          Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, CDC Foundation.

          Related collections

          Most cited references21

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Are quality improvement collaboratives effective? A systematic review

          Quality improvement collaboratives (QIC) have proliferated internationally, but there is little empirical evidence for their effectiveness.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Continuing education meetings and workshops: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes.

            Educational meetings are widely used for continuing medical education. Previous reviews found that interactive workshops resulted in moderately large improvements in professional practice, whereas didactic sessions did not. To assess the effects of educational meetings on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. We updated previous searches by searching the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group Trials Register and pending file, from 1999 to March 2006. Randomised controlled trials of educational meetings that reported an objective measure of professional practice or healthcare outcomes. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality. Studies with a low or moderate risk of bias and that reported baseline data were included in the primary analysis. They were weighted according to the number of health professionals participating. For each comparison, we calculated the risk difference (RD) for dichotomous outcomes, adjusted for baseline compliance; and for continuous outcomes the percentage change relative to the control group average after the intervention, adjusted for baseline performance. Professional and patient outcomes were analysed separately. We considered 10 factors to explain heterogeneity of effect estimates using weighted meta-regression supplemented by visual analysis of bubble and box plots. In updating the review, 49 new studies were identified for inclusion. A total of 81 trials involving more than 11,000 health professionals are now included in the review. Based on 30 trials (36 comparisons), the median adjusted RD in compliance with desired practice was 6% (interquartile range 1.8 to 15.9) when any intervention in which educational meetings were a component was compared to no intervention. Educational meetings alone had similar effects (median adjusted RD 6%, interquartile range 2.9 to 15.3; based on 21 comparisons in 19 trials). For continuous outcomes the median adjusted percentage change relative to control was 10% (interquartile range 8 to 32%; 5 trials). For patient outcomes the median adjusted RD in achievement of treatment goals was 3.0 (interquartile range 0.1 to 4.0; 5 trials). Based on univariate meta-regression analyses of the 36 comparisons with dichotomous outcomes for professional practice, higher attendance at the educational meetings was associated with larger adjusted RDs (P < 0.01); mixed interactive and didactic education meetings (median adjusted RD 13.6) were more effective than either didactic meetings (RD 6.9) or interactive meetings (RD 3.0). Educational meetings did not appear to be effective for complex behaviours (adjusted RD -0.3) compared to less complex behaviours; they appeared to be less effective for less serious outcomes (RD 2.9) than for more serious outcomes. Educational meetings alone or combined with other interventions, can improve professional practice and healthcare outcomes for the patients. The effect is most likely to be small and similar to other types of continuing medical education, such as audit and feedback, and educational outreach visits. Strategies to increase attendance at educational meetings, using mixed interactive and didactic formats, and focusing on outcomes that are likely to be perceived as serious may increase the effectiveness of educational meetings. Educational meetings alone are not likely to be effective for changing complex behaviours.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Are multifaceted interventions more effective than single-component interventions in changing health-care professionals’ behaviours? An overview of systematic reviews

              Background One of the greatest challenges in healthcare is how to best translate research evidence into clinical practice, which includes how to change health-care professionals’ behaviours. A commonly held view is that multifaceted interventions are more effective than single-component interventions. The purpose of this study was to conduct an overview of systematic reviews to evaluate the effectiveness of multifaceted interventions in comparison to single-component interventions in changing health-care professionals’ behaviour in clinical settings. Methods The Rx for Change database, which consists of quality-appraised systematic reviews of interventions to change health-care professional behaviour, was used to identify systematic reviews for the overview. Dual, independent screening and data extraction was conducted. Included reviews used three different approaches (of varying methodological robustness) to evaluate the effectiveness of multifaceted interventions: (1) effect size/dose-response statistical analyses, (2) direct (non-statistical) comparisons of multifaceted to single interventions and (3) indirect comparisons of multifaceted to single interventions. Results Twenty-five reviews were included in the overview. Three reviews provided effect size/dose-response statistical analyses of the effectiveness of multifaceted interventions; no statistical evidence of a relationship between the number of intervention components and the effect size was found. Eight reviews reported direct (non-statistical) comparisons of multifaceted to single-component interventions; four of these reviews found multifaceted interventions to be generally effective compared to single interventions, while the remaining four reviews found that multifaceted interventions had either mixed effects or were generally ineffective compared to single interventions. Twenty-three reviews indirectly compared the effectiveness of multifaceted to single interventions; nine of which also reported either a statistical (dose-response) analysis (N = 2) or a non-statistical direct comparison (N = 7). The majority (N = 15) of reviews reporting indirect comparisons of multifaceted to single interventions showed similar effectiveness for multifaceted and single interventions when compared to controls. Of the remaining eight reviews, six found single interventions to be generally effective while multifaceted had mixed effectiveness. Conclusion This overview of systematic reviews offers no compelling evidence that multifaceted interventions are more effective than single-component interventions. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-014-0152-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Lancet Glob Health
                Lancet Glob Health
                The Lancet. Global Health
                Elsevier Ltd
                2214-109X
                08 October 2018
                November 2018
                08 October 2018
                : 6
                : 11
                : e1163-e1175
                Affiliations
                [a ]Malaria Branch, Division of Parasitic Diseases and Malaria, Center for Global Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA
                [b ]CDC Foundation, Atlanta, GA, USA
                [c ]Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
                [d ]World Health Organization, Southeast Asia Regional Office, New Delhi, India
                [e ]International Institute of Health Management Research, Jaipur, India
                [f ]Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK
                [g ]Pharmaceuticals & Health Technologies Group, Management Sciences for Health, Arlington, VA, USA
                [h ]Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA, USA
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence to: Dr Alexander K Rowe, Malaria Branch, Division of Parasitic Diseases and Malaria, Center for Global Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA 30329, USA axr9@ 123456cdc.gov
                [†]

                Dr Holloway retired from the World Health Organization in March, 2016

                Article
                S2214-109X(18)30398-X
                10.1016/S2214-109X(18)30398-X
                6185992
                30309799
                c1fde766-1243-4e35-81c6-c3a04514ba6b
                © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license

                This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                Categories
                Article

                Comments

                Comment on this article