18
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Nudge strategies to improve healthcare providers’ implementation of evidence-based guidelines, policies and practices: a systematic review of trials included within Cochrane systematic reviews

      review-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

          Nudge interventions are those that seek to modify the social and physical environment to enhance capacity for subconscious behaviours that align with the intrinsic values of an individual, without actively restricting options. This study sought to describe the application and effects of nudge strategies on clinician implementation of health-related guidelines, policies and practices within studies included in relevant Cochrane systematic reviews.

          Methods

          As there is varied terminology used to describe nudge, this study examined studies within relevant systematic reviews. A two-stage screening process was undertaken where, firstly, all systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Library between 2016 and 2018 were screened to identify reviews that included quantitative studies to improve implementation of guidelines among healthcare providers. Secondly, individual studies within relevant systematic reviews were included if they were (i) randomised controlled trials (RCTs), (ii) included a nudge strategy in at least one intervention arm, and (iii) explicitly aimed to improve clinician implementation behaviour. We categorised nudge strategies into priming, salience and affect, default, incentives, commitment and ego, and norms and messenger based on the Mindspace framework.

          Synthesis

          The number and percentage of trials using each nudge strategy was calculated. Due to substantial heterogeneity, we did not undertake a meta-analysis. Instead, we calculated within-study point estimates and 95% confidence intervals, and used a vote-counting approach to explore effects.

          Results

          Seven reviews including 42 trials reporting on 57 outcomes were included. The most common nudge strategy was priming (69%), then norms and messenger (40%). Of the 57 outcomes, 86% had an effect on clinician behaviour in the hypothesised direction, and 53% of those were statistically significant. For continuous outcomes, the median effect size was 0.39 (0.22, 0.45), while for dichotomous outcomes the median Odds Ratio was 1.62 (1.13, 2.76).

          Conclusions

          This review of 42 RCTs included in Cochrane systematic reviews found that the impact of nudge strategies on clinician behaviour was at least comparable to other interventions targeting implementation of evidence-based guidelines. While uncertainty remains, the review provides justification for ongoing investigation of the evaluation and application of nudge interventions to support provider behaviour change.

          Trial registration

          This review was not prospectively registered.

          Related collections

          Most cited references99

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Book: not found

          Introduction to Meta-Analysis

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

            Interventions for improving outcomes in patients with multimorbidity in primary care and community settings.

            Many people with chronic disease have more than one chronic condition, which is referred to as multimorbidity. The term comorbidity is also used but this is now taken to mean that there is a defined index condition with other linked conditions, for example diabetes and cardiovascular disease. It is also used when there are combinations of defined conditions that commonly co-exist, for example diabetes and depression. While this is not a new phenomenon, there is greater recognition of its impact and the importance of improving outcomes for individuals affected. Research in the area to date has focused mainly on descriptive epidemiology and impact assessment. There has been limited exploration of the effectiveness of interventions to improve outcomes for people with multimorbidity.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Provision of social norm feedback to high prescribers of antibiotics in general practice: a pragmatic national randomised controlled trial

              Summary Background Unnecessary antibiotic prescribing contributes to antimicrobial resistance. In this trial, we aimed to reduce unnecessary prescriptions of antibiotics by general practitioners (GPs) in England. Methods In this randomised, 2 × 2 factorial trial, publicly available databases were used to identify GP practices whose prescribing rate for antibiotics was in the top 20% for their National Health Service (NHS) Local Area Team. Eligible practices were randomly assigned (1:1) into two groups by computer-generated allocation sequence, stratified by NHS Local Area Team. Participants, but not investigators, were blinded to group assignment. On Sept 29, 2014, every GP in the feedback intervention group was sent a letter from England's Chief Medical Officer and a leaflet on antibiotics for use with patients. The letter stated that the practice was prescribing antibiotics at a higher rate than 80% of practices in its NHS Local Area Team. GPs in the control group received no communication. The sample was re-randomised into two groups, and in December, 2014, GP practices were either sent patient-focused information that promoted reduced use of antibiotics or received no communication. The primary outcome measure was the rate of antibiotic items dispensed per 1000 weighted population, controlling for past prescribing. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN32349954, and has been completed. Findings Between Sept 8 and Sept 26, 2014, we recruited and assigned 1581 GP practices to feedback intervention (n=791) or control (n=790) groups. Letters were sent to 3227 GPs in the intervention group. Between October, 2014, and March, 2015, the rate of antibiotic items dispensed per 1000 population was 126·98 (95% CI 125·68–128·27) in the feedback intervention group and 131·25 (130·33–132·16) in the control group, a difference of 4·27 (3·3%; incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0·967 [95% CI 0·957–0·977]; p<0·0001), representing an estimated 73 406 fewer antibiotic items dispensed. In December, 2014, GP practices were re-assigned to patient-focused intervention (n=777) or control (n=804) groups. The patient-focused intervention did not significantly affect the primary outcome measure between December, 2014, and March, 2015 (antibiotic items dispensed per 1000 population: 135·00 [95% CI 133·77–136·22] in the patient-focused intervention group and 133·98 [133·06–134·90] in the control group; IRR for difference between groups 1·01, 95% CI 1·00–1·02; p=0·105). Interpretation Social norm feedback from a high-profile messenger can substantially reduce antibiotic prescribing at low cost and at national scale; this outcome makes it a worthwhile addition to antimicrobial stewardship programmes. Funding Public Health England.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                serene.yoong@health.nsw.gov.au
                Journal
                Implement Sci
                Implement Sci
                Implementation Science : IS
                BioMed Central (London )
                1748-5908
                1 July 2020
                1 July 2020
                2020
                : 15
                : 50
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.266842.c, ISNI 0000 0000 8831 109X, Hunter New England Population Health, , University of Newcastle, ; Locked Bag 10, Wallsend, New South Wales 2287 Australia
                [2 ]GRID grid.266842.c, ISNI 0000 0000 8831 109X, School of Medicine and Public Health, , The University of Newcastle, ; Callaghan, New South Wales 2308 Australia
                [3 ]GRID grid.413648.c, Hunter Medical Research Institute, ; Newcastle, New South Wales 2300 Australia
                [4 ]GRID grid.266842.c, ISNI 0000 0000 8831 109X, Priority Research Centre for Health Behaviour, , The University of Newcastle, ; Callaghan, New South Wales 2308 Australia
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0836-017X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1043-6110
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7041-5020
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3379-5340
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0470-7663
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4872-2112
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4298-4613
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7726-1714
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6178-3868
                Article
                1011
                10.1186/s13012-020-01011-0
                7329401
                32611354
                1a92af26-cf98-4a6a-9064-91488fe53602
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. 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 in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 4 February 2020
                : 16 June 2020
                Funding
                Funded by: Internal research funds from the University of Newcastle
                Categories
                Systematic Review
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Medicine
                implementation intervention,nudge,healthcare provider,guidelines,review
                Medicine
                implementation intervention, nudge, healthcare provider, guidelines, review

                Comments

                Comment on this article