PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Martin Eccles

Publications and source records attributed to Martin Eccles.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

A new method of analysis enabled a better understanding of clinical practice guideline development processes.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the process by which various forms of evidence are discussed, valued, and interpreted within the process of developing evidence-based clinical practice guidelines and, in so doing, to develop a method for such studies. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: An observational study. Two guideline development groups were observed by a nonparticipant observer. The 21 meetings were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using grounded theory and frame analysis. Qualitative analysis was complemented with descriptive statistics. RESULTS: The groups organized their discussion around four domains--'science', 'practice', politics', and 'process'--and used boundary work to mediate between these domains. Both groups spent most time discussing 'science', followed by 'practice' or its relation with 'science'. CONCLUSION: Our analysis offers an innovative, replicable method of analysis of guideline development that permits the identification of the proportions and interrelations between knowledge domains deployed by guideline groups. This analysis also suggests that the participation hierarchy observed here and by others might be an effect of the imbalanced use of knowledge domains in the construction of clinical guidance. This constitutes an important framework to understand the interplay of participants and knowledge in guideline development.

Data Interpretation, Statistical↗
PubMed2006

Protocol for north of England and Scotland study of tonsillectomy and adeno-tonsillectomy in children (NESSTAC). A pragmatic randomised controlled trial comparing surgical intervention with conventional medical treatment in children with recurrent sore throats.

BACKGROUND: Uncertainties surrounding the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of childhood tonsillectomy for recurrent sore throat led the NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme to commission this research to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of tonsillectomy and adeno-tonsillectomy in comparison with standard non-surgical management in children aged under 16 with recurrent throat infections. The aim is to evaluate if tonsillectomy and adeno-tonsillectomy reduces the number of episodes of sore throats among children to a clinically significant extent. METHODS/DESIGN: A simple prospective pragmatic randomised controlled trial with economic analysis and prospective cohort study of non-trial participants comparing surgical intervention with conventional medical treatment. The treatment arm will receive tonsillectomy and adeno-tonsillectomy while in the control arm non-surgical conventional medical treatment only will be used. The primary outcome measure will be reported number of episodes of sore throat over two years with secondary outcomes measures of reported number of episodes of sore throat, otitis media and upper respiratory tract infection which invoke a GP consultation; reported number of symptom-free days; reported severity of sore throats and surgical and anaesthetic morbidity. The study will take place in five hospitals in the UK. The trial population will be 406 children aged 4-15 on their last birthday with recurrent sore throat referred by primary care to the 5 otolaryngology departments. The duration of the study is seven years (July 2001-July 2008). DISCUSSION: As with all pragmatic randomised controlled trials it is impossible to control the external environment in which the research is taking place. Since this trial began a number of factors have arisen which could affect the outcome including; a reduction in the incidence of respiratory tract infections, marked socio-economic differences in consultation rates, the results from the National Prospective Tonsillectomy Audit and the Government's waiting list initiatives.

Journal Article↗
PubMed2006

Applying psychological theory to evidence-based clinical practice: identifying factors predictive of taking intra-oral radiographs.

This study applies psychological theory to the implementation of evidence-based clinical practice. The first objective was to see if variables from psychological frameworks (developed to understand, predict and influence behaviour) could predict an evidence-based clinical behaviour. The second objective was to develop a scientific rationale to design or choose an implementation intervention. Variables from the Theory of Planned Behaviour, Social Cognitive Theory, Self-Regulation Model, Operant Conditioning, Implementation Intentions and the Precaution Adoption Process were measured, with data collection by postal survey. The primary outcome was the number of intra-oral radiographs taken per course of treatment collected from a central fee claims database. Participants were 214 Scottish General Dental Practitioners. At the theory level, the Theory of Planned Behaviour explained 13% variance in the number of radiographs taken, Social Cognitive Theory explained 7%, Operant Conditioning explained 8%, Implementation Intentions explained 11%. Self-Regulation and Stage Theory did not predict significant variance in radiographs taken. Perceived behavioural control, action planning and risk perception explained 16% of the variance in number of radiographs taken. Knowledge did not predict the number of radiographs taken. The results suggest an intervention targeting predictive psychological variables could increase the implementation of this evidence-based practice, while influencing knowledge is unlikely to do so. Measures which predicted number of radiographs taken also predicted intention to take radiographs, and intention accounted for significant variance in behaviour (adjusted R(2)=5%: F(1,166)=10.28, p<.01), suggesting intention may be a possible proxy for behavioural data when testing an intervention prior to a service-level trial. Since psychological frameworks incorporate methodologies to measure and change component variables, taking a theory-based approach enabled the creation of a methodology that can be replicated for identifying factors predictive of clinical behaviour and for the design and choice of interventions to modify practice as new evidence emerges.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Effect of enhanced feedback and brief educational reminder messages on laboratory test requesting in primary care: a cluster randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Laboratory services play an important part in screening, diagnosis, and management of patients within primary care. However, unnecessary use of laboratory tests is increasing. Our aim was to assess the effect of two interventions on the number of laboratory tests requested by primary-care physicians. METHODS: We did a cluster randomised controlled trial using a 2x2 factorial design, involving 85 primary-care practices (370 family practitioners) that request all laboratory tests from one regional centre. The interventions were quarterly feedback of practice requesting rates for nine laboratory tests, enhanced with educational messages, and brief educational reminder messages added to the test result reports for nine laboratory tests. The primary outcome was the number of targeted tests requested by primary-care practices during the 12 months of the intervention. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN06490422. FINDINGS: Practices that received either or both the enhanced feedback and the reminder messages were significantly less likely than the control group to request the targeted tests in total (enhanced feedback odds ratio 0.87, 95% CI 0.81-0.94; reminder messages 0.89, 0.83-0.93). The effect of the interventions varied across the targeted tests individually, although the number of tests requested for both interventions was generally reduced. Neither intervention was consistently better than the other. INTERPRETATION: Enhanced feedback of requesting rates and brief educational reminder messages, alone and in combination, are effective strategies for reducing test requesting in primary care. Both strategies are feasible within most laboratory settings.

Clinical Laboratory Techniques↗
PubMed2006

Methods underpinning national clinical guidelines for hypertension: describing the evidence shortfall.

BACKGROUND: To be useful, clinical practice guidelines need to be evidence based; otherwise they will not achieve the validity, reliability and credibility required for implementation. METHODS: This paper compares the methods used in gathering, analysing and linking of evidence to guideline recommendations in ten current hypertension guidelines. RESULTS: It found several guidelines had failed to implement methods of searching for the relevant literature, critical analysis and linking to recommendations that minimise the risk of bias in the interpretation of research evidence. The more rigorous guidelines showed discrepancies in recommendations and grading that reflected different approaches to the use of evidence in guideline development. CONCLUSION: Clinical practice guidelines as a methodology are clearly still an evolving health care technology.

Algorithms↗
PubMed2006

Toward evidence-based quality improvement. Evidence (and its limitations) of the effectiveness of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies 1966-1998.

OBJECTIVES: To determine effectiveness and costs of different guideline dissemination and implementation strategies. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (1966 to 1998), HEALTHSTAR (1975 to 1998), Cochrane Controlled Trial Register (4th edn 1998), EMBASE (1980 to 1998), SIGLE (1980 to 1988), and the specialized register of the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care group. REVIEW METHODS INCLUSION CRITERIA: Randomized-controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, controlled before and after studies, and interrupted time series evaluating guideline dissemination and implementation strategies targeting medically qualified health care professionals that reported objective measures of provider behavior and/or patient outcome. Two reviewers independently abstracted data on the methodologic quality of the studies, characteristics of study setting, participants, targeted behaviors, and interventions. We derived single estimates of dichotomous process variables (e.g., proportion of patients receiving appropriate treatment) for each study comparison and reported the median and range of effect sizes observed by study group and other quality criteria. RESULTS: We included 309 comparisons derived from 235 studies. The overall quality of the studies was poor. Seventy-three percent of comparisons evaluated multifaceted interventions. Overall, the majority of comparisons (86.6%) observed improvements in care; for example, the median absolute improvement in performance across interventions ranged from 14.1% in 14 cluster-randomized comparisons of reminders, 8.1% in 4 cluster-randomized comparisons of dissemination of educational materials, 7.0% in 5 cluster-randomized comparisons of audit and feedback, and 6.0% in 13 cluster-randomized comparisons of multifaceted interventions involving educational outreach. We found no relationship between the number of components and the effects of multifaceted interventions. Only 29.4% of comparisons reported any economic data. CONCLUSIONS: Current guideline dissemination and implementation strategies can lead to improvements in care within the context of rigorous evaluative studies. However, there is an imperfect evidence base to support decisions about which guideline dissemination and implementation strategies are likely to be efficient under different circumstances. Decision makers need to use considerable judgment about how best to use the limited resources they have for quality improvement activities.

Evidence-Based Medicine↗
PubMed2005

Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations II: pilot study of a new system.

BACKGROUND: Systems that are used by different organisations to grade the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations vary. They have different strengths and weaknesses. The GRADE Working Group has developed an approach that addresses key shortcomings in these systems. The aim of this study was to pilot test and further develop the GRADE approach to grading evidence and recommendations. METHODS: A GRADE evidence profile consists of two tables: a quality assessment and a summary of findings. Twelve evidence profiles were used in this pilot study. Each evidence profile was made based on information available in a systematic review. Seventeen people were given instructions and independently graded the level of evidence and strength of recommendation for each of the 12 evidence profiles. For each example judgements were collected, summarised and discussed in the group with the aim of improving the proposed grading system. Kappas were calculated as a measure of chance-corrected agreement for the quality of evidence for each outcome for each of the twelve evidence profiles. The seventeen judges were also asked about the ease of understanding and the sensibility of the approach. All of the judgements were recorded and disagreements discussed. RESULTS: There was a varied amount of agreement on the quality of evidence for the outcomes relating to each of the twelve questions (kappa coefficients for agreement beyond chance ranged from 0 to 0.82). However, there was fair agreement about the relative importance of each outcome. There was poor agreement about the balance of benefits and harms and recommendations. Most of the disagreements were easily resolved through discussion. In general we found the GRADE approach to be clear, understandable and sensible. Some modifications were made in the approach and it was agreed that more information was needed in the evidence profiles. CONCLUSION: Judgements about evidence and recommendations are complex. Some subjectivity, especially regarding recommendations, is unavoidable. We believe our system for guiding these complex judgements appropriately balances the need for simplicity with the need for full and transparent consideration of all important issues.

Comprehension↗
PubMed2005

Changing the behavior of healthcare professionals: the use of theory in promoting the uptake of research findings.

OBJECTIVE: The uptake of research findings into routine health care is a haphazard and unpredictable process. The usefulness of the results of implementation studies is limited, due in part to the lack of an underlying framework of the important dimensions of research studies in this area and the healthcare settings within which they are conducted and may subsequently be used. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We explore the role for a theory-based framework and suggest some of the methods that would be needed to operationalize the framework in the context of designing and conducting interventions aimed at improving the use of research findings by individual healthcare professionals or teams. CONCLUSIONS: This research offers a framework for those who would seek to use the results of such studies in routine healthcare settings.

Diffusion of Innovation↗
PubMed2004

Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations I: critical appraisal of existing approaches The GRADE Working Group.

BACKGROUND: A number of approaches have been used to grade levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations. The use of many different approaches detracts from one of the main reasons for having explicit approaches: to concisely characterise and communicate this information so that it can easily be understood and thereby help people make well-informed decisions. Our objective was to critically appraise six prominent systems for grading levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations as a basis for agreeing on characteristics of a common, sensible approach to grading levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations. METHODS: Six prominent systems for grading levels of evidence and strength of recommendations were selected and someone familiar with each system prepared a description of each of these. Twelve assessors independently evaluated each system based on twelve criteria to assess the sensibility of the different approaches. Systems used by 51 organisations were compared with these six approaches. RESULTS: There was poor agreement about the sensibility of the six systems. Only one of the systems was suitable for all four types of questions we considered (effectiveness, harm, diagnosis and prognosis). None of the systems was considered usable for all of the target groups we considered (professionals, patients and policy makers). The raters found low reproducibility of judgements made using all six systems. Systems used by 51 organisations that sponsor clinical practice guidelines included a number of minor variations of the six systems that we critically appraised. CONCLUSIONS: All of the currently used approaches to grading levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations have important shortcomings.

Advisory Committees↗
PubMed2004

Guiding the design and selection of interventions to influence the implementation of evidence-based practice: an experimental simulation of a complex intervention trial.

A consistent finding in health services research is the report of uneven uptake of research findings. Implementation trials have a variable record of success in effectively influencing clinicians' behaviour. A more systematic approach may be to conduct Intervention Modelling Experiments before service-level trials, examining intervention effects on 'interim endpoints' representing clinical behaviour, derived from empirically supported psychological theories. The objectives were to: (1) Design Intervention Modelling Experiments by backward engineering a 'real-world' randomised controlled trial (NEXUS); (2) examine the applicability of psychological theories to clinical decision-making; (3) explore whether psychological theories can illuminate how interventions achieve their effects. A 2 x 2 factorial randomised controlled trial was designed with pre- and post-intervention data collection by postal questionnaire surveys. The first survey was used to generate feedback data and the interventions were delivered in the second survey. General medical practitioners (GPs) in England and Scotland participated. First survey respondents were randomised twice to receive or not audit and feedback and educational reminder messages. The main outcome measures included behavioural intention (general plan to refer for lumbar X-rays) and simulated behaviour (specific, scenario-based, decisions to refer for lumbar X-ray). Predictors were attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioural control (theory of planned behaviour), self-efficacy (social cognitive theory) and decision difficulty. Both interventions significantly influenced simulated behaviour, but neither influenced behavioural intention. There were no interaction effects. All theoretically derived cognitions significantly predicted simulated behaviour. Only subjective norm was not predictive of behavioural intention. The effect of audit and feedback on simulated behaviour was mediated through perceived behavioural control. The results of this study suggest that Intervention Modelling Experiments, using psychological models to help isolate mediators of clinical decision-making, may be a means of developing more potent interventions, and selecting implementation interventions with a greater likelihood of success in a service-level randomised controlled trial.

Analysis of Variance↗
PubMed2004

Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.

Users of clinical practice guidelines and other recommendations need to know how much confidence they can place in the recommendations. Systematic and explicit methods of making judgments can reduce errors and improve communication. We have developed a system for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations that can be applied across a wide range of interventions and contexts. In this article we present a summary of our approach from the perspective of a guideline user. Judgments about the strength of a recommendation require consideration of the balance between benefits and harms, the quality of the evidence, translation of the evidence into specific circumstances, and the certainty of the baseline risk. It is also important to consider costs (resource utilisation) before making a recommendation. Inconsistencies among systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations reduce their potential to facilitate critical appraisal and improve communication of these judgments. Our system for guiding these complex judgments balances the need for simplicity with the need for full and transparent consideration of all important issues.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗
PubMed2004

Implementing clinical guidelines: current evidence and future implications.

One of the most common findings from health services research is a failure to routinely translate research findings into daily practice. Previous systematic reviews of strategies to promote the uptake of research findings suffered from a range of methodologic problems that have been addressed in a more recent systematic review of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies. Changes in practitioner behavior; in the desired direction, were reported in 86% of the comparisons made. The median effect size overall was approximately 10% improvement in absolute terms. The review suggests that interventions that were previously thought to be ineffective (e.g., dissemination of educational materials) may have modest but worthwhile benefits. Also, multifaceted interventions, previously thought to be more effective than single interventions, were found to be no more effective than single interventions. Overall, there is an imperfect evidence base for decision makers to work from. Many studies had methodologic weaknesses, and reporting of this kind of research is generally poor, making the generalizability of study findings frequently uncertain. A better theoretical underpinning of studies would make this body of research more useful.

Decision Making↗
PubMed2004

Disclosing a diagnosis of dementia: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The issue of diagnostic disclosure in dementia has been debated extensively in professional journals, but empirical data concerning disclosure in dementia has not previously been systematically reviewed. OBJECTIVE: To review empirical data regarding diagnostic disclosure in dementia. METHODS: Five electronic databases were searched up to September 2003 (Medline, Embase, Cinahl, Sociological Abstracts, Web of Science). Additional references were identified through hand searches of selected journals and bibliographies of relevant articles and books. The title and abstract of each identified paper were reviewed independently by two reviewers against pre-determined inclusion criteria: original data about disclosure were presented and the paper was in English. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion until consensus was reached. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers using a structured abstraction form. Data quality were not formally assessed although each study was critically reviewed in terms of methodology, sampling criteria, response rates and appropriateness of analysis. RESULTS: Fifty-nine papers met the inclusion criteria for detailed review. Many of the studies had methodological shortcomings. The studies reported wide variability in all areas of beliefs and attitudes to diagnostic disclosure and reported practice. Studies of the impact of disclosure indicate both negative and positive consequences of diagnostic disclosure for people with dementia and their carers. CONCLUSIONS: Existing evidence regarding diagnostic disclosure in dementia is both inconsistent and limited with the perspectives of people with dementia being largely neglected. This state of knowledge seems at variance with current guidance about disclosure.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMed2003

PRIME--PRocess modelling in ImpleMEntation research: selecting a theoretical basis for interventions to change clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Biomedical research constantly produces new findings but these are not routinely translated into health care practice. One way to address this problem is to develop effective interventions to translate research findings into practice. Currently a range of empirical interventions are available and systematic reviews of these have demonstrated that there is no single best intervention. This evidence base is difficult to use in routine settings because it cannot identify which intervention is most likely to be effective (or cost effective) in a particular situation. We need to establish a scientific rationale for interventions. As clinical practice is a form of human behaviour, theories of human behaviour that have proved useful in other similar settings may provide a basis for developing a scientific rationale for the choice of interventions to translate research findings into clinical practice. The objectives of the study are: to amplify and populate scientifically validated theories of behaviour with evidence from the experience of health professionals; to use this as a basis for developing predictive questionnaires using replicable methods; to identify which elements of the questionnaire (i.e., which theoretical constructs) predict clinical practice and distinguish between evidence compliant and non-compliant practice; and on the basis of these results, to identify variables (based on theoretical constructs) that might be prime targets for behaviour change interventions. METHODS: We will develop postal questionnaires measuring two motivational, three action and one stage theory to explore five behaviours with 800 general medical and 600 general dental practitioners. We will collect data on performance for each of the behaviours. The relationships between predictor variables (theoretical constructs) and outcome measures (data on performance) in each survey will be assessed using multiple regression analysis and structural equation modelling. In the final phase of the project, the findings from all surveys will be analysed simultaneously adopting a random effects approach to investigate whether the relationships between predictor variables and outcome measures are modified by behaviour, professional group or geographical location.

Biomedical Research↗
PubMed2003

Practice based, longitudinal, qualitative interview study of computerised evidence based guidelines in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the factors influencing the adoption of a computerised clinical decision support system for two chronic diseases in general practice. DESIGN: Practice based, longitudinal, qualitative interview study. SETTING: Five general practices in north east England. PARTICIPANTS: 13 respondents (two practice managers, three nurses, and eight general practitioners) gave a total of 19 semistructured interviews. 40 people in practices included in the randomised controlled trial (34 doctors, three nurses) and interview study (three doctors, one previously interviewed) gave feedback. RESULTS: Negative comments about the decision support system significantly outweighed the positive or neutral comments. Three main areas of concern among clinicians emerged: timing of the guideline trigger, ease of use of the system, and helpfulness of the content. Respondents did not feel that the system fitted well within the general practice context. Experience of "on-demand" information sources, which were generally more positively viewed, informed the comments about the system. Some general practitioners suggested that nurses might find the guideline content more clinically useful and might be more prepared to use a computerised decision support system, but lack of feedback from nurses who had experienced the system limited the ability to assess this. CONCLUSIONS: Significant barriers exist to the use of complex clinical decision support systems for chronic disease by general practitioners. Key issues include the relevance and accuracy of messages and the flexibility to respond to other factors influencing decision making in primary care.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMed2003

A qualitative study to explore influences on general practitioners' decisions to prescribe new drugs.

BACKGROUND: Ensuring appropriate prescribing is an important challenge for the health service, and the need for research that takes account of the reasons behind individual general practitioners' (GPs) prescribing decisions has been highlighted. AIM: To explore differences among GPs in their decisions to prescribe new drugs. DESIGN OF STUDY: Qualitative approach, using in-depth semistructured interviews. SETTING: Northern and Yorkshire Health Authority Region. METHOD: Participants were identified from a random sample of 520 GPs in a quantitative study of patterns of uptake of eight recently introduced drugs. Purposeful sampling ensured inclusion of GPs prescribing any of the eight drugs and working in a range of practice settings. Fifty-six GPs were interviewed, using a topic guide. Interviews were recorded on audiotape. Transcribed text was methodically coded and data were analysed by constantly comparing emerging themes. RESULTS: Both low and high prescribers shared a view of themselves as conservative in their prescribing behaviour. Low prescribers appeared to conform more strongly to group norms and identified a consensus among practice partners in prescribing and cost-consciousness. Conformism to group norms was represented by a commitment to practice formularies. High prescribers more often expressed themselves to be indifferent to drug costs and a shared practice ethos. CONCLUSIONS: A shift in the attitudes of some GPs is required before cost-effectiveness is routinely incorporated in drug prescribing. The promotion of rational prescribing is likely to be more successful if efforts are focused on GPs' appreciation of cost issues and attitudes towards shared decision-making and responsibility.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMed2002

Effect of computerised evidence based guidelines on management of asthma and angina in adults in primary care: cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the use of a computerised support system for decision making for implementing evidence based clinical guidelines for the management of asthma and angina in adults in primary care. DESIGN: A before and after pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial utilising a two by two incomplete block design. SETTING: 60 general practices in north east England. PARTICIPANTS: General practitioners and practice nurses in the study practices and their patients aged 18 or over with angina or asthma. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Adherence to the guidelines, based on review of case notes and patient reported generic and condition specific outcome measures. RESULTS: The computerised decision support system had no significant effect on consultation rates, process of care measures (including prescribing), or any patient reported outcomes for either condition. Levels of use of the software were low. CONCLUSIONS: No effect was found of computerised evidence based guidelines on the management of asthma or angina in adults in primary care. This was probably due to low levels of use of the software, despite the system being optimised as far as was technically possible. Even if the technical problems of producing a system that fully supports the management of chronic disease were solved, there remains the challenge of integrating the systems into clinical encounters where busy practitioners manage patients with complex, multiple conditions.

Angina Pectoris↗