Randomised controlled trial of a theoretically grounded tailored intervention to diffuse evidence-based public health practice [ISRCTN23257060]. Randomized controlled trial of assertive community treatment in intellectual disability: the TACTILD study. Comparative effectiveness of three approaches to serving people with severe mental illness and substance abuse disorders. The efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioral treatment. Confirmation from meta-analysis. An outreach intervention to implement evidence based practice in residential care: a randomized controlled trial [ISRCTN67855475]. Promoting patient participation in consultations: a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of three patient-focused interventions. Randomized trial of coordinated psychosocial interventions based on patient self-assessments versus standard care to improve the psychosocial functioning of patients with cancer. Strategies for improving the quality of health care in maternal and child health in low- and middle-income countries: an overview of systematic reviews. Effectiveness of teaching general practitioners skills in brief cognitive behaviour therapy to treat patients with depression: randomised controlled trial.
Previous studies have shown that Norwegian public health physicians do not systematically and explicitly use scientific evidence in their practice. They work in an environment that does not encourage the integration of this information in decision-making. In this study we investigate whether a theoretically grounded tailored intervention to diffuse evidence-based public health practice increases the physicians' use of research information.
                148 self-selected public health physicians were randomised to an intervention group (n = 73) and a control group (n = 75). The intervention group received a multifaceted intervention while the control group received a letter declaring that they had access to library services. Baseline assessments before the intervention and post-testing immediately at the end of a 1.5-year intervention period were conducted. The intervention was theoretically based and consisted of a workshop in evidence-based public health, a newsletter, access to a specially designed information service, to relevant databases, and to an electronic discussion list. The main outcome measure was behaviour as measured by the use of research in different documents.
                The intervention did not demonstrate any evidence of effects on the objective behaviour outcomes. We found, however, a statistical significant difference between the two groups for both knowledge scores: Mean difference of 0.4 (95% CI: 0.2-0.6) in the score for knowledge about EBM-resources and mean difference of 0.2 (95% CI: 0.0-0.3) in the score for conceptual knowledge of importance for critical appraisal. There were no statistical significant differences in attitude-, self-efficacy-, decision-to-adopt- or job-satisfaction scales. There were no significant differences in Cochrane library searching after controlling for baseline values and characteristics.
                Though demonstrating effect on knowledge the study failed to provide support for the hypothesis that a theory-based multifaceted intervention targeted at identified barriers will change professional behaviour. There has been a policy shift away from hospital to community in the services of all those with psychiatric disorders, including those with intellectual disability (ID), in the last 50 years. This has been accompanied recently by the growth of assertive outreach services, but these have not been evaluated in ID services.
                In a randomized controlled trial we compared assertive outreach with 'standard' community care, using global assessment of function (GAF) as the primary outcome measure, and burden and quality of life as secondary measures.
                We recruited 30 patients, considerably less than expected; no significant differences were found between the primary and secondary outcomes in the two groups. The differences were so small that a Type II error was unlikely.
                Reasons for this lack of specific efficacy of the assertive approach are discussed and it is suggested that there is a blurring of the differences between standard and assertive approaches in practice. This study examines the rationale for and relative effectiveness of three intervention models for treating people with severe mental illness and substance abuse disorders: Twelve Step recovery, behavioral skills training, and intensive case management. Using clinical trial methods, 132 dually diagnosed clients were assigned to three service approaches. Changes in client psychosocial outcomes, and psychiatric and substance abuse symptomatology were tracked over a 24-month period. Differential effectiveness was evident, with clients in the behavioral skills group demonstrating the most positive and significant differences in psychosocial functioning and symptomatology, compared with the Twelve Step recovery approach. However, the case management intervention also resulted in several positive and important differences compared with the Twelve Step recovery approach. We also found significant changes over time, not only at 6 months but increasingly positive changes in psychosocial functioning at 12 and 18 months as well. These results underscore the need for clinical trials to further examine the relative cost effectiveness of treatment approaches for dually disordered clients and to incorporate means of assessing subgroup differences so that the interventions being tested can be further refined and targeted to a broad set of needs among the dually diagnosed. Conventional reviews of research on the efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioral treatments often find considerable variation in outcome among studies and, as a consequence, fail to reach firm conclusions about the overall effectiveness of the interventions in question. In contrast meta-analytic reviews show a strong, dramatic pattern of positive overall effects that cannot readily be explained as artifacts of meta-analytic technique or generalized placebo effects. Moreover, the effects are not so small that they can be dismissed as lacking practical or clinical significance. Although meta-analysis has limitations, there are good reasons to believe that its results are more credible than those of conventional reviews and to conclude that well-developed psychological, educational, and behavioral treatment is generally efficacious. The aim of this project was to assess whether outreach visits would improve the implementation of evidence based clinical practice in the area of falls reduction and stroke prevention in a residential care setting.
                Twenty facilities took part in a randomized controlled trial with a seven month follow-up period. Two outreach visits were delivered by a pharmacist. At the first a summary of the relevant evidence was provided and at the second detailed audit information was provided about fall rates, psychotropic drug prescribing and stroke risk reduction practices (BP monitoring, aspirin and warfarin use) for the facility relevant to the physician. The effect of the interventions was determined via pre- and post-intervention case note audit. Outcomes included change in percentage patients at risk of falling who fell in a three month period prior to follow-up and changes in use of psychotropic medications. Chi-square tests, independent samples t-test, and logistic regression were used in the analysis.
                Data were available from case notes at baseline (n = 897) and seven months follow-up (n = 902), 452 residential care staff were surveyed and 121 physicians were involved with 61 receiving outreach visits. Pre-and post-intervention data were available for 715 participants. There were no differences between the intervention and control groups for the three month fall rate. We were unable to detect statistically significant differences between groups for the psychotropic drug use of the patients before or after the intervention. The exception was significantly greater use of "as required" antipsychotics in the intervention group compared with the control group after the pharmacy intervention (RR = 4.95; 95%CI 1.69-14.50). There was no statistically significant difference between groups for the numbers of patients "at risk of stroke" on aspirin at follow-up.
                While the strategy was well received by the physicians involved, there was no change in prescribing patterns. Patient care in residential settings is complex and involves contributions from the patient's physician, family and residential care staff. The project highlights challenges of delivering evidence based care in a setting in which there is a paucity of well controlled trial evidence but where significant health outcomes can be attained. The aim of this experimental study was to evaluate the effectiveness of three patient-focused interventions designed to increase patient question asking in clinical consultations. Patients were randomly allocated to one of five conditions to receive either one of three interventions or to serve as an attention control group or a control group. The primary outcome measure was question asking by the patient of their physician. Participants in the intervention groups did not ask more questions than participants in the control groups. Immediately after the consultation participants in the intervention groups had higher levels of self-efficacy in asking questions. Three months after the index visit patients in the intervention groups were significantly more likely to be satisfied to some degree than patients in the control group. There was no difference in diabetic control. These results suggest that simple brief patient-focused interventions do not change patient behaviour in medical outpatient consultations. To determine whether making patient-reported cancer needs, quality-of-life (QOL), and psychosocial information available to the health care team, allowing coordinated specifically targeted psychosocial interventions, resulted in reduced cancer needs, improved QOL, and increased satisfaction with care received.
                Self-reported cancer needs, QOL, and psychosocial information was collected from 450 people with cancer, using standardized questionnaires via a touch-screen computer. For a randomly chosen two thirds, this information was made available to the health care team who coordinated targeted psychosocial interventions. Information from the remaining one third was not seen. Patients were assessed 2 and 6 months after randomization for changes in their cancer needs, QOL, and psychosocial functioning and satisfaction with overall care received.
                There were no significant differences between the two arms with respect to changes in cancer needs, QOL, or psychosocial functioning between the baseline and follow-up assessments, nor with respect to satisfaction with care. However, for the subgroup of patients who were moderately or severely depressed at baseline, there was a significant reduction in depression for the intervention arm relative to the control arm at the 6-month assessment (P =.001).
                Making patient-reported cancer needs, QOL, and psychosocial data available to the health care team at a single consultation together with coordinated psychosocial interventions does not seem to reduce cancer needs nor improve QOL, psychosocial functioning, or satisfaction with the care received. However, identification of patients with moderate or severe levels of depression may be valuable in reducing subsequent levels of depression. 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. To assess the effectiveness of teaching general practitioners skills in brief cognitive behaviour therapy.
                Parallel group, cluster randomised, controlled trial of an educational package on cognitive behaviour therapy.
                General practices in north London.
                84 general practitioner principals and 272 patients attending their practices who scored above the threshold for psychological distress on the hospital anxiety and depression scale. Intervention: A training package of four half days on brief cognitive behaviour therapy. Main outcome measures: Scores on the depression attitude questionnaire (general practitioners) and the Beck depression inventory (patients).
                Doctors' knowledge of depression and attitudes towards its treatment showed no major difference between intervention and control groups after 6 months. The training had no discernible impact on patients' outcomes.
                General practitioners may require more training and support than a basic educational package on brief cognitive behaviour therapy to acquire skills to help patients with depression.
Very little evidence exists that there is no difference in the effectiveness between different types of interventions and that brief interventions are not superior to assessment only or treatment as usual. No conclusion can be made because of the paucity of the data and the low quality of the retrieved studies.