a systematic review of a f interventions the good the bad and the ugly n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
A Systematic Review of A&F interventions: the good, the bad, and the ugly PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
A Systematic Review of A&F interventions: the good, the bad, and the ugly

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 22

A Systematic Review of A&F interventions: the good, the bad, and the ugly - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 68 Views
  • Uploaded on

A Systematic Review of A&F interventions: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Heather Colquhoun, CIHR and KT Canada Postdoctoral Fellow, OHRI. Research Team. Jamie C Brehaut, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (OHRI) Kevin Eva, University of British Columbia (Vancouver) Jeremy Grimshaw, OHRI

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'A Systematic Review of A&F interventions: the good, the bad, and the ugly' - porter


Download Now An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
a systematic review of a f interventions the good the bad and the ugly

A Systematic Review of A&F interventions: the good, the bad, and the ugly

Heather Colquhoun, CIHR and KT Canada Postdoctoral Fellow, OHRI

research team
Research Team

Jamie C Brehaut, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (OHRI)

Kevin Eva, University of British Columbia (Vancouver)

Jeremy Grimshaw, OHRI

Anne Sales, University of Michigan (Ann Arbor)

Noah Ivers, Women’s College Research Institute (Toronto)

Susan Michie, University College London (UK)

Heather Colquhoun, OHRI

Kelly Carroll, MSc, OHRI

Mathieu Chalifoux, OHRI

Funding: CIHR KT Priority Announcement

systematic review of studies of a f
Systematic Review of studies of A&F
  • Not focused on effectiveness, but rather the details of the interventions
    • Extent, type and purpose of theory use
    • Consistency with theoretical constructs believed to be important for A&F
    • Intervention description
methods
Methods
  • Systematic Review
  • 140 RCT’s of A&F from the Cochrane Review
  • Data extraction form, pilot X 2
  • Extracted by two reviewers, one consistent
  • Separate extraction with consensus for disagreements
a f interventions
A&F Interventions
  • To whom?
  • What exactly?
  • Where and how delivered?
  • How much?
  • Why?
  • Give results, challenges, examples of variations
to whom
To whom?
  • Was the FB given to the person in whom the behaviour change was desired?
what exactly1
What exactly?
  • Feedback about ‘Other’ 45 (32%)
    • Accuracy of their diagnosis
    • Cost
    • Risk data for patients (stroke, infection)
    • Education as FB (FB on what type of antibiotic they should have prescribed)
    • Survey on barriers to change
what exactly2
What exactly?
  • Was the FB graphical?
  • Did the FB address the behaviour to be changed?
  • Was there a clear comparison in the FB?
comparison for a f
Comparison for A&F

Other: internal standard, “plan wide scores” for comparison, systematic review, algorithm,

others previous performance + thresholds set by expert panel, others previous

performance + own previous performance + drug formulations that accounted for >60%

of charges + the total charges

how delivered
How delivered?
  • Was the FB given face to face?
how much total feedback
How much – Total feedback
  • Unclear: 33 (24%)
  • Clear: 107 (76%)
    • Once: 33
    • Twice: 21
    • Three times: 13
    • Four times: 13
    • >four times: 27 (range 5-78)
  • Frequency
  • Challenges
when and how much
When and how much?
  • Was the lag time between collection of the FB and the provision of the FB clearly stated?
  • If yes, what was it?
    • Days: 6
    • Weeks: 23
    • Months: 56
    • Years: 1
    • Mix: 2
reporting
Reporting
  • “The data was presented in an easy to follow format”
  • “Extensive feedback was provided twice a week”
  • “Feedback was always discussed in detail”
  • “The exact nature of the A&F was decided within each audit group and supported by the researcher with help and advice from the tutor”
slide16

Hospital Report Card: Given to individuals not given to target, about behaviour, about the group, aggregate, comparison: multiple, given 1X, 12 indicators

slide17

Given to individuals (mailed), individual and group performance, aggregate data, multiple comparison, target yes, behaviour yes, key message, every 2 months for 6 months (3)

slide18

Given to individuals, individual performance?, ind data, target yes, behaviour no, monthly for 9 months

slide19

Self-monitoring, face to face, given to individual, individual performance, weekly for 4 months?

“To be displayed in a conspicuous location in their office”

summary
Summary
  • Some consistency but also wide variation
  • Reporting is poor in many areas
  • Rationale for the intervention is lacking
slide22

Given to individuals by mail, individual and group performance, multiple comparisons, quarterly for 18 months (6), target yes, behaviour yes