PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

G Jamtvedt

Publications and source records attributed to G Jamtvedt.

8 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Audit and feedback continues to be widely used as a strategy to improve professional practice. It appears logical that healthcare professionals would be prompted to modify their practice if given feedback that their clinical practice was inconsistent with that of their peers or accepted guidelines. Yet, audit and feedback has not consistently been found to be effective. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of audit and feedback on the practice of healthcare professionals and patient outcomes. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group's register and pending file up to January 2004. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials of audit and feedback (defined as any summary of clinical performance over a specified period of time) that reported objectively measured professional practice in a healthcare setting or healthcare outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. Quantitative (meta-regression), visual and qualitative analyses were undertaken. For each comparison we calculated the risk difference (RD) and risk ratio (RR), adjusted for baseline compliance when possible, for dichotomous outcomes and the percentage and the percent change relative to the control group average after the intervention, adjusted for baseline performance when possible, for continuous outcomes. We investigated the following factors as possible explanations for the variation in the effectiveness of interventions across comparisons: the type of intervention (audit and feedback alone, audit and feedback with educational meetings, or multifaceted interventions that included audit and feedback), the intensity of the audit and feedback, the complexity of the targeted behaviour, the seriousness of the outcome, baseline compliance and study quality. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty new studies were added to this update, and a total of 118 studies are included. In the primary analysis 88 comparisons from 72 studies were included that compared any intervention in which audit and feedback is a component compared to no intervention. For dichotomous outcomes the adjusted risk difference of compliance with desired practice varied from - 0.16 (a 16 % absolute decrease in compliance) to 0.70 (a 70% increase in compliance) (median = 0.05, inter-quartile range = 0.03 to 0.11) and the adjusted risk ratio varied from 0.71 to 18.3 (median = 1.08, inter-quartile range = 0.99 to 1.30). For continuous outcomes the adjusted percent change relative to control varied from -0.10 (a 10 % absolute decrease in compliance) to 0.68 (a 68% increase in compliance) (median = 0.16, inter-quartile range = 0.05 to 0.37). Low baseline compliance with recommended practice and higher intensity of audit and feedback were associated with larger adjusted risk ratios (greater effectiveness) across studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Audit and feedback can be effective in improving professional practice. When it is effective, the effects are generally small to moderate. The relative effectiveness of audit and feedback is likely to be greater when baseline adherence to recommended practice is low and when feedback is delivered more intensively.

Education, Medical, Continuing↗
PubMed2005

What do we know about how to do audit and feedback? Pitfalls in applying evidence from a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Improving the quality of health care requires a range of evidence-based activities. Audit and feedback is commonly used as a quality improvement tool in the UK National Health Service [NHS]. We set out to assess whether current guidance and systematic review evidence can sufficiently inform practical decisions about how to use audit and feedback to improve quality of care. METHODS: We selected an important chronic disease encountered in primary care: diabetes mellitus. We identified recommendations from National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidance on conducting audit and generated questions which would be relevant to any attempt to operationalise audit and feedback in a healthcare service setting. We explored the extent to which a systematic review of audit and feedback could provide practical guidance about whether audit and feedback should be used to improve quality of diabetes care and, if so, how audit and feedback could be optimised. RESULTS: National guidance suggests the importance of securing the right organisational conditions and processes. Review evidence suggests that audit and feedback can be effective in changing healthcare professional practice. However, the available evidence says relatively little about the detail of how to use audit and feedback most efficiently. CONCLUSION: Audit and feedback will continue to be an unreliable approach to quality improvement until we learn how and when it works best. Conceptualising audit and feedback within a theoretical framework offers a way forward.

Humans↗
PubMed2004

Bed rest for acute low-back pain and sciatica.

BACKGROUND: Low-back pain (LBP) is a common reason for consulting a general practitioner, and advice on daily activities is an important part of the primary care management of low-back pain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of advice to rest in bed for patients with acute LBP or sciatica. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Back Group Specialized Registry, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Sport, and SCISEARCH to March 2003, reference lists of relevant articles, and contacted authors of relevant articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or controlled clinical trials with quasi-randomisation (alternate allocation, case record numbers, dates of birth, etc.), in any language, where the effectiveness of advice to rest in bed was evaluated. The main outcomes of interest were pain, functional status, recovery and return to work. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed the internal validity of included trials and extracted data. Investigators were contacted to obtain missing information. MAIN RESULTS: Eleven trials (1963 patients) were included in this updated version. There is high quality evidence that people with acute LBP who are advised to rest in bed have a little more pain [Standardised Mean Difference (SMD) 0.22 (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.02, 0.41)] and a little less functional recovery [SMD 0.29 (95% CI: 0.05, 0.45)] than those advised to stay active. For patients with sciatica, there is moderate quality evidence of little or no difference in pain [SMD -0.03 (95% CI: -0.24, 0.18)] or functional status [SMD 0.19 (95% CI: -0.02, 0.41)] between bed rest and staying active. For patients with acute LBP, there is moderate quality evidence of little or no difference in pain intensity or functional status between bed rest and exercises. For patients with sciatica, there is moderate quality evidence of little or no difference in pain intensity between bed rest and physiotherapy, but small improvements in functional status [Weighted Mean Difference 6.9 (on a 0-100 scale) (95% CI: 1.09, 12.74)] with physiotherapy. There is moderate quality evidence of little or no difference in pain intensity or functional status between two to three days and seven days of bed rest. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: For people with acute LBP, advice to rest in bed is less effective than advice to stay active. For patients with sciatica, there is little or no difference between advice to rest in bed and advice to stay active. There is little or no difference in the effect of bed rest compared to exercises or physiotherapy, or seven days of bed rest compared with two to three.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed2002

Advice to stay active as a single treatment for low back pain and sciatica.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is one of the most common conditions managed in primary care. Restricted activity, rest, and symptomatic analgesics are the most commonly prescribed treatment for low back pain and sciatica. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of advice to stay active as single treatment for patients with low back pain. SEARCH STRATEGY: Computerised searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Sport, The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Musculoskeletal Group's Trials Register and Scisearch, and scanning of reference lists from relevant articles were undertaken. Relevant studies were also traced by contacting authors. Date of the most recent searches: December 1998. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised trials or quasi-randomised trials where the study population consisted of adult patients with low back pain or sciatica, in which one comparison group was advised to stay active. The main outcomes of interest were pain, functional status, recovery and return to work. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed the validity of included trials and extracted data. Investigators were contacted to collect missing data or for clarification when needed. MAIN RESULTS: Four trials, with a total of 491 patients, were included. Advice to stay active was compared to advice to rest in bed in all trials. Two trials were assessed to have low risk of bias and two to have moderate to high risk of bias. The results were heterogeneous. Results from one high quality trial of patients with acute simple LBP found small differences in functional status [Weighted Mean Difference (on a 0-100 scale) 6.0 (95% CI: 1.5, 10.5)] and length of sick leave [WMD 3.4 days (95% CI: 1.6, 5.2)] in favour of staying active compared to advice to stay in bed for two days. The other high quality trial compared advice to stay active with advice to rest in bed for 14 days for patients with sciatic syndrome, and found no differences between the groups. One of the high quality trials also compared advice to stay active with exercises for patients with acute simple LBP, and found improvement in functional status and reduction in sick leave in favour of advice to stay active. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: The best available evidence suggests that advice to stay active alone has small beneficial effects for patients with acute simple low back pain, and little or no effect for patients with sciatica. There is no evidence that advice to stay active is harmful for either acute low back pain or sciatica. If there is no major difference between advice to stay active and advice to rest in bed, and there is potential harmful effects of prolonged bed rest, then it is reasonable to advise people with acute low back pain and sciatica to stay active. These conclusions are based on single trials.

Bed Rest↗
PubMed2000

The Cochrane review of bed rest for acute low back pain and sciatica.

STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review within the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of advice to rest in bed for patients with acute low back pain (LBP) or sciatica. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Low back pain is a common reason for consulting a health care provider, and advice on daily activities constitutes an important part in the primary care management of low back pain. METHODS: All randomized studies available in systematic searches (electronic databases, contact with authors, and reference lists) were included. Two reviewers independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed the validity of included trials, and extracted data. Investigators were contacted to obtain missing information. RESULTS: Nine trials with a total of 1435 patients were included. Four trials compared bed rest with advice to stay active, and the overall results were heterogeneous. Overall, results from two high-quality studies indicate no difference in pain intensity at the 3-week follow-up (standardized mean difference 0.0; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.3, 0.2]), and a small difference in functional status in favor of staying active (weighted mean difference 3.2 [on a 0-100 scale] 95% CI 0.6, 5.8). In two high-quality trials no differences were reported in pain intensity between 2-3 days of bed rest and 7 days of bed rest. In another two high-quality trials, no differences were found between bed rest and exercises in pain intensity or functional status. CONCLUSION: Bed rest compared with advice to stay active at best has no effect, and at worst may have slightly harmful effects on LBP. There is not an important difference in the effects of bed rest compared with exercises in the treatment of acute low back pain, or 7 days compared with 2-3 days of bed rest in patients with low back pain of different durations with and without radiating pain.

Activities of Daily Living↗
PubMed2000

Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Audit and feedback has been identified as having the potential to change the practice of health care professionals. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of audit and feedback on the practice of health professionals and patient outcomes. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE up to June 1997, the Research and Development Resource Base in Continuing Medical Education, and reference lists of related systematic reviews and articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials of audit and feedback (defined as any summary of clinical performance of health care over a specified period of time). The participants were health care professionals responsible for patient care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-seven studies were included, involving more than 4977 physicians. The reporting of study methods was inadequate for almost all studies. In 31 out of 37 studies the randomisation process could not be determined. Information regarding data analysis was also lacking. For example, power calculations were not mentioned in 27 out of 37 studies. A variety of behaviours were targeted including the reduction of diagnostic test ordering, prescribing practices, preventive care, and the general management of a problem, for example hypertension. Twenty-eight studies measured physician performance, one study targeted patient outcomes in diabetes and the remaining eight studies measured both physician performance and patient outcomes. The relative percentage differences ranged from -16% to 152%. The clinical importance of the changes was not always clear. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Audit and feedback can sometimes be effective in improving the practice of health care professionals, in particular prescribing and diagnostic test ordering. When it is effective, the effects appear to be small to moderate but potentially worthwhile. Those attempting to enhance professional behaviour should not rely solely on this approach.

Education, Medical, Continuing↗
PubMed2000

Bed rest for acute low back pain and sciatica.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is a common reason for consulting a general practitioner, and advice on daily activities constitutes an important part in the primary care management of low back pain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of bed rest for patients with acute low back pain or sciatica. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group trial register, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, Embase, Sport, Scisearch, and reference lists of relevant articles. We also contacted authors of relevant articles. Date of the most recent searches: December 1998. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised studies or quasi randomised studies where at least one comparison group of adult patients with acute low back pain with or without radiation of pain below the knee was advised to rest in bed for at least two days and one group was not, or where comparison groups were advised to stay in bed for different lengths of time. The main outcomes of interest were pain, functional status, recovery and return to work. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed the validity of included trials and extracted data. Investigators were contacted to obtain missing information. MAIN RESULTS: Nine trials with a total of 1435 patients were included. Five trials met all four validity criteria and were assessed to have low risk of bias, while four trials were assessed to have moderate to high risk of bias. Four trials compared bed rest with advice to stay active, and overall the results were heterogeneous. Overall results from two high quality studies indicate no difference in pain intensity at three weeks follow-up [Standardized Mean Difference 0.0 (95%CI: -0.3, 0.2)], and a small difference in functional status in favour of staying active [Weighted Mean Difference 3.2 (on a 0-100 scale) (95%CI 0.6, 5.8)]. Two high quality trials reported no differences in pain intensity between two to three days of bed rest and seven days of bed rest. Another two high-quality trials found no differences between bed rest and exercises in pain intensity or functional status. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Bed rest compared to acvice to stay active will at best have small effects, and at worst might have small harmful effects on acute LBP. Differences in effects of advice to stay in bed compared with advice to stay active are small for patients with low back pain with or without sciatica. There is not an important difference in the effects of bed rest compared with exercises in the treatment of acute low back pain, or seven days compared with two to three days of bed rest in patients with low back pain of different duration with and without radiating pain.

Acute Disease↗