Implementation strategies for a Scottish national epilepsy guideline in primary care: results of the Tayside Implementation of Guidelines in Epilepsy Randomized (TIGER) trial. Enhancing behavioral and social skill functioning in children newly diagnosed with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in a pediatric setting. Randomized effectiveness trial of a computer-assisted intervention to improve diabetes care. Global report on preterm birth and stillbirth (3 of 7): evidence for effectiveness of interventions. Reducing stillbirths: behavioural and nutritional interventions before and during pregnancy. Examination of the analytic quality of behavioral health randomized clinical trials. Strategies for improving the quality of health care in maternal and child health in low- and middle-income countries: an overview of systematic reviews. Improving services for disadvantaged childbearing women.
To determine the effectiveness of two dissemination and implementation strategies to implement a national guideline for epilepsy management in primary care settings.
                Three-arm cluster-randomized controlled trial. The participants were general practitioners from 68 practices in Tayside, Scotland, and 1,133 of their patients with self-reported epilepsy treated with antiepileptic medications (AEDs). Practices were randomized blind to a control, intermediate, or intensive intervention. Control: Postal dissemination of a nationally developed clinical guideline. Intermediate intervention: Postal dissemination of the guideline supported by interactive, accredited workshops, and dedicated, structured protocol documents. Intensive intervention: Intermediate intervention plus a nurse specialist who supported and educated practices in the establishment of epilepsy review clinics. The primary outcome was the SF-36 health-related quality-of-life instrument. Secondary measures were a battery of prevalidated epilepsy-specific quality-of-life instruments. These were administered at baseline and after the intervention phase. Process of care was assessed by case-note review on number of review meetings and counseling sessions for epilepsy before and after the interventions.
                None of the intervention groups showed any change in the primary or secondary outcome measures or process-of-care measures.
                None of the intervention strategies led to improvements in patient quality of life or quality of epilepsy care. Further research is needed to discover why the interventions failed, to identify barriers to adoption of guidelines, and to develop strategies that might improve implementation and uptake in the future. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of an 8-week behavioral and social skill (BSS) class for children newly diagnosed with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and their parents, initiating stimulant treatment in primary care. The subjects were 100 children, aged 5 to 12 years, recently diagnosed with ADHD and treated with stimulant medication, and their parents or guardians. Eligible families were randomly assigned to an intervention group (IG: n = 59) or control group (CG: n = 41). The BSS function of each child was assessed using DuPaul's ADHD Parent Rating Scale (18-item) and Child Attention Profile (12-item) during blinded baseline and follow-up interviews. Parent discipline practice was assessed using a five-item inventory based on Likert-scale ratings during identical periods. Computerized pharmacy records were used to track psychostimulant use over time. IG children exhibited significantly lower parent-rated ADHD symptoms, whereas IG parents reported significantly better and more consistent discipline practices compared with CG parents across time. No significant differences were found between groups in Child Attention Profile scores across time. Psychostimulant use did not significantly differ between groups across time. BSS training was well accepted and seemed to significantly improve BSS functioning among IG children in the home setting only. There is a well-documented gap between diabetes care guidelines and the services received by patients in most health care settings. This report presents 12-month follow-up results from a computer-assisted, patient-centered intervention to improve the level of recommended services patients received from a variety of primary care settings.
                A total of 886 patients with type 2 diabetes under the care of 52 primary care physicians participated in the Diabetes Priority Program. Physicians were stratified and randomized to intervention or control conditions and evaluated on two primary outcomes: number of recommended laboratory screenings and recommended patient-centered care activities completed from the National Committee on Quality Assurance/American Diabetes Association Provider Recognition Program (PRP). Secondary outcomes were evaluated using the Problem Areas in Diabetes 2 quality of life scale, lipid and HbA1c levels, and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 depression scale.
                The program was well implemented and significantly improved both the number of laboratory assays and patient-centered aspects of diabetes care patients received compared with those in the control condition. There was overall improvement on secondary outcomes of lipids, HbA1c, quality of life, and depression scores; between-condition differences were not significant.
                Staff in small, mixed-payer primary care offices can consistently implement a patient-centered intervention to improve PRP measures of quality of diabetes care. Alternative explanations for why these process improvements did not lead to improved outcomes, and suggested directions for future research are discussed. Interventions directed toward mothers before and during pregnancy and childbirth may help reduce preterm births and stillbirths. Survival of preterm newborns may also be improved with interventions given during these times or soon after birth. This comprehensive review assesses existing interventions for low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).
                Approximately 2,000 intervention studies were systematically evaluated through December 31, 2008. They addressed preterm birth or low birth weight; stillbirth or perinatal mortality; and management of preterm newborns. Out of 82 identified interventions, 49 were relevant to LMICs and had reasonable amounts of evidence, and therefore selected for in-depth reviews. Each was classified and assessed by the quality of available evidence and its potential to treat or prevent preterm birth and stillbirth. Impacts on other maternal, fetal, newborn or child health outcomes were also considered. Assessments were based on an adaptation of the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria.
                Most interventions require additional research to improve the quality of evidence. Others had little evidence of benefit and should be discontinued. The following are supported by moderate- to high-quality evidence and strongly recommended for LMICs: Two interventions prevent preterm births--smoking cessation and progesterone. Eight interventions prevent stillbirths--balanced protein energy supplementation, screening and treatment of syphilis, intermittant presumptive treatment for malaria during pregnancy, insecticide-treated mosquito nets, birth preparedness, emergency obstetric care, cesarean section for breech presentation, and elective induction for post-term delivery. Eleven interventions improve survival of preterm newborns--prophylactic steroids in preterm labor, antibiotics for PROM, vitamin K supplementation at delivery, case management of neonatal sepsis and pneumonia, delayed cord clamping, room air (vs. 100% oxygen) for resuscitation, hospital-based kangaroo mother care, early breastfeeding, thermal care, and surfactant therapy and application of continued distending pressure to the lungs for respiratory distress syndrome
                The research paradigm for discovery science and intervention development must be balanced to address prevention as well as improve morbidity and mortality in all settings. This review also reveals significant gaps in current knowledge of interventions spanning the continuum of maternal and fetal outcomes, and the critical need to generate further high-quality evidence for promising interventions. The vast majority of global stillbirths occur in low- and middle-income countries, and in many settings, the majority of stillbirths occur antenatally, prior to the onset of labour. Poor nutritional status, lack of antenatal care and a number of behaviours increase women's risk of stillbirth in many resource-poor settings. Interventions to reduce these risks could reduce the resulting burden of stillbirths, but the evidence for the impact of such interventions has not yet been comprehensively evaluated.
                This second paper of a systematic review of interventions that could plausibly impact stillbirth rates covers 12 different interventions relating to behavioural and socially mediated risk factors, including exposures to harmful practices and substances, antenatal care utilisation and quality, and maternal nutrition before and during pregnancy. The search strategy reviewed indexed medical journals on PubMed and the Cochrane Library. If any eligible randomised controlled trials were identified that were published after the most recent Cochrane review, they were added to generate new meta-analyses. Interventions covered in this paper have a focus on low- and middle-income countries, both because of the large burden of stillbirths and because of the high prevalence of risk factors including maternal malnutrition and harmful environmental exposures. The reviews and studies belonging to these interventions were graded and conclusions derived about the evidence of benefit of these interventions.
                From a programmatic perspective, none of the interventions achieved clear evidence of benefit. Evidence for some socially mediated risk factors were identified, such as exposure to indoor air pollution and birth spacing, but still require the development of appropriate interventions. There is a need for additional studies on culturally appropriate behavioural interventions and clinical trials to increase smoking cessation and reduce exposure to smokeless tobacco. Balanced protein-energy supplementation was associated with reduced stillbirth rates, but larger well-designed trials are required to confirm findings. Peri-conceptional folic acid supplementation significantly reduces neural tube defects, yet no significant associated reductions in stillbirth rates have been documented. Evidence for other nutritional interventions including multiple micronutrient and Vitamin A supplementation is weak, suggesting the need for further research to assess potential of nutritional interventions to reduce stillbirths.
                Antenatal care is widely used in low- and middle-income countries, and provides a natural facility-based contact through which to provide or educate about many of the interventions we reviewed. The impact of broader socially mediated behaviors, such as fertility decision-making, access to antenatal care, and maternal diet and exposures like tobacco and indoor air pollution during pregnancy, are poorly understood, and further research and appropriate interventions are needed to test the association of these behaviours with stillbirth outcomes. For most nutritional interventions, larger randomised controlled trials are needed which report stillbirths disaggregated from composite perinatal mortality. Many antepartum stillbirths are potentially preventable in low- and middle-income countries, particularly through dietary and environmental improvement, and through improving the quality of antenatal care - particularly including diagnosis and management of high-risk pregnancies - that pregnant women receive. Adoption of evidence-based practice (EBP) policy has implications for clinicians and researchers alike. In fields that have already adopted EBP, evidence-based practice guidelines derive from systematic reviews of research evidence. Ultimately, such guidelines serve as tools used by practitioners. Systematic reviews of treatment efficacy and effectiveness reserve their strongest endorsements for treatments that are supported by high-quality randomized clinical trials (RCTs). It is unknown how well RCTs reported in behavioral science journals fare compared to quality standards set forth in fields that pioneered the evidence-based movement. We compared analytic quality features of all behavioral health RCTs (n = 73) published in three leading behavioral journals and two leading medical journals between January 2000 and July 2003. A behavioral health trial was operationalized as one employing a behavioral treatment modality to prevent or treat an acute or chronic physical disease or condition. Findings revealed areas of weakness in analytic aspects of the behavioral health RCTs reported in both sets of journals. Weaknesses were more pronounced in behavioral journals. The authors offer recommendations for improving the analytic quality of behavioral health RCTs to ensure that evidence about behavioral treatments is highly weighted in systematic reviews.
                (c) 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. There are many systematic reviews of continuing education programmes and educational strategies for quality improvement in health care. Most of the reviewed studies are one-off evaluations rather than impact evaluations with long-term follow-up. There are few systematic reviews of organisational, financial and regulatory interventions, and few high-quality studies. These interventions are probably as or more important than educational strategies, although they are less well evaluated. Few studies have been undertaken in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) or that address maternal and child health (MCH). Thus, the results of the available studies and reviews need to be interpreted cautiously when applied to LMIC. Interactive workshops, reminders and multifaceted interventions can improve professional practice, and they generally have moderate effects. Educational outreach visits consistently improve prescribing but have variable effects on other behaviours. Audit and feedback interventions have variable effects on professional practice, but most often these are small to moderate effects. Mass-media and patient-mediated interventions may change professional practice. Multifaceted interventions that combine several quality-improvement strategies are also effective but may not be more so than single interventions. While all of these strategies are applicable to MCH in LMIC, the applicability of the results to rural settings, in particular, may be limited. Use of these strategies could exacerbate inequalities, and this should be taken into consideration when planning implementation. Scaling up and sustainability may be difficult to achieve in LMIC contexts and need careful consideration. The use of financial interventions has not been well studied; financial incentives and disincentives may be difficult to use effectively and efficiently, although their impact on practice needs to be considered. Organisational interventions are likely to be important, given that there are often underlying organisational or system problems. Regulatory interventions have not been well evaluated, but may sometimes be both inexpensive and effective. There are no 'magic bullets' or simple solutions for ensuring the quality of health care services. Interventions should be selected or tailored to address the underlying reasons for a failure to deliver effective services. Decision-makers should select the most appropriate interventions for specific problems. This requires a governance structure that clearly assigns responsibility for quality-improvement activities, priority setting, selection and design of interventions, and evaluation. Tackling health inequalities is high on the political agenda of the Labour government. The government wants to reduce inequalities through policies based on evidence, the health of childbearing women and their babies being priority areas for action. National Service Frameworks (NSFs) are being set up to ensure high quality services for all groups. The External Working Group looking into maternity services for the Children's NSF seeks evidence upon which to plan strategies for all women, while focusing attention on the most disadvantaged. Wide differentials are noted between high- and low-income groups in the outcomes of pregnancy and the health of babies. The worst outcomes appear to be concentrated in small subgroups of disadvantaged women.
                To report on a review of studies of interventions improving perinatal outcomes for disadvantaged women, to inform policy and practice around the organization and delivery of statutory services in the UK.
                We searched six relevant databases for reviews, intervention studies, audits and descriptions of services reporting outcomes for disadvantaged groups of women, published between 1990 and 2003. Synthesis was performed around what works and what does not work. Gaps in the evidence base were identified.
                We found limited evidence of effective and promising interventions for childbearing women from minority ethnic groups, women experiencing domestic violence, women with mental health illness and HIV infected women. Few studies were well-designed or powered to detect effectiveness. There were no studies of interventions for women prisoners, homeless women and travellers.
                Searching for intervention studies primarily by participant subgroup has brought in evidence from few well-designed studies on which to plan policy. Combining this approach with searching for intervention studies addressing behaviour like smoking, and needs like social support, may provide further evidence to tackle inequalities in the perinatal period.
Some outcomes may be amenable to psychosocial treatments; however, there is insufficient evidence to recommend practice changes. Further research on interventions described in this review is required, including attention to timing, duration, setting and administering discipline(s), as well as treatment across care settings. To facilitate future evaluations, a core outcome set, including patient-reported outcomes such as quality of life and compliance, should be established for hip fracture trials.