Tailored interventions to address determinants of practice

Richard Baker, Janette Camosso-Stefinovic, Clare Gillies, Elizabeth J Shaw, Francine Cheater, Signe Flottorp, Noelle Robertson, Michel Wensing, Michelle Fiander, Martin P Eccles, Maciek Godycki-Cwirko, Jan van Lieshout, Cornelia Jäger, Richard Baker, Janette Camosso-Stefinovic, Clare Gillies, Elizabeth J Shaw, Francine Cheater, Signe Flottorp, Noelle Robertson, Michel Wensing, Michelle Fiander, Martin P Eccles, Maciek Godycki-Cwirko, Jan van Lieshout, Cornelia Jäger

Abstract

Background: Tailored intervention strategies are frequently recommended among approaches to the implementation of improvement in health professional performance. Attempts to change the behaviour of health professionals may be impeded by a variety of different barriers, obstacles, or factors (which we collectively refer to as determinants of practice). Change may be more likely if implementation strategies are specifically chosen to address these determinants.

Objectives: To determine whether tailored intervention strategies are effective in improving professional practice and healthcare outcomes. We compared interventions tailored to address the identified determinants of practice with either no intervention or interventions not tailored to the determinants.

Search methods: We conducted searches of The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, CINAHL, and the British Nursing Index to May 2014. We conducted a final search in December 2014 (in MEDLINE only) for more recently published trials. We conducted searches of the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) in March 2013. We also handsearched two journals.

Selection criteria: Cluster-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions tailored to address prospectively identified determinants of practice, which reported objectively measured professional practice or healthcare outcomes, and where at least one group received an intervention designed to address prospectively identified determinants of practice.

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently assessed quality and extracted data. We undertook qualitative and quantitative analyses, the quantitative analysis including two elements: we carried out 1) meta-regression analyses to compare interventions tailored to address identified determinants with either no interventions or an intervention(s) not tailored to the determinants, and 2) heterogeneity analyses to investigate sources of differences in the effectiveness of interventions. These included the effects of: risk of bias, use of a theory when developing the intervention, whether adjustment was made for local factors, and number of domains addressed with the determinants identified.

Main results: We added nine studies to this review to bring the total number of included studies to 32 comparing an intervention tailored to address identified determinants of practice to no intervention or an intervention(s) not tailored to the determinants. The outcome was implementation of recommended practice, e.g. clinical practice guideline recommendations. Fifteen studies provided enough data to be included in the quantitative analysis. The pooled odds ratio was 1.56 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27 to 1.93, P value < 0.001). The 17 studies not included in the meta-analysis had findings showing variable effectiveness consistent with the findings of the meta-regression.

Authors' conclusions: Despite the increase in the number of new studies identified, our overall finding is similar to that of the previous review. Tailored implementation can be effective, but the effect is variable and tends to be small to moderate. The number of studies remains small and more research is needed, including trials comparing tailored interventions to no or other interventions, but also studies to develop and investigate the components of tailoring (identification of the most important determinants, selecting interventions to address the determinants). Currently available studies have used different methods to identify determinants of practice and different approaches to selecting interventions to address the determinants. It is not yet clear how best to tailor interventions and therefore not clear what the effect of an optimally tailored intervention would be.

Conflict of interest statement

Richard Baker, Francine Cheater, Clare Gillies, Michel Wensing, and Signe Flottorp are authors of one or more of three of the included studies. Noelle Robertson is an author on two of the included studies. Other review authors completed data extractions for these studies. The institutions of the following authors received funding from the EU that helped to support the conduct of this review: Richard Baker, Clare Gillies, Janette Camosso‐Stefinovic, Signe Flottorp, Noelle Robertson, Michel Wensing, Martin Eccles, Maciek Godycki‐Cwirko, Jan van Lieshout, Cornelia Jäger.

Richard Baker, none other than as indicated above

Janette Camosso‐Stefinovic, none other than as indicated above

Clare Gillies, none other than as indicated above

Elizabeth J Shaw, none

Francine Cheater, none other than as indicated above

Signe Flottorp, none other than as indicated above

Noelle Robertson, none other than ias ndicated above

Michel Wensing, none other than as indicated above

Michelle Fiander, none

Martin P Eccles, none other than as indicated above

Maciek Godycki‐Cwirko, none other than as indicated above

Jan van Lieshout, none other than as indicated above