e-Health interventions for healthy aging: a systematic review
A Systematic Review of A&F interventions: the good, the bad, and the ugly
description
Transcript of A Systematic Review of A&F interventions: the good, the bad, and the ugly
![Page 1: A Systematic Review of A&F interventions: the good, the bad, and the ugly](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070404/56813bbb550346895da4ea72/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
A Systematic Review of A&F interventions: the good, the bad, and the uglyHeather Colquhoun, CIHR and KT Canada Postdoctoral Fellow, OHRI
![Page 2: A Systematic Review of A&F interventions: the good, the bad, and the ugly](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070404/56813bbb550346895da4ea72/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
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
![Page 3: A Systematic Review of A&F interventions: the good, the bad, and the ugly](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070404/56813bbb550346895da4ea72/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
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
![Page 4: A Systematic Review of A&F interventions: the good, the bad, and the ugly](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070404/56813bbb550346895da4ea72/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
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
![Page 5: A Systematic Review of A&F interventions: the good, the bad, and the ugly](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070404/56813bbb550346895da4ea72/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
A&F Interventions
• To whom?• What exactly? • Where and how delivered?• How much?• Why?
• Give results, challenges, examples of variations
![Page 6: A Systematic Review of A&F interventions: the good, the bad, and the ugly](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070404/56813bbb550346895da4ea72/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
To whom?
• Was the FB given to the person in whom the behaviour change was desired?
Who was FB given to? Count (%)
Individual 72 (51%)
Group 25 (18%)
Individual and Group 23 (16%)
Unclear 20 (14%)
Yes No Unclear
130 (92%) 6 (5%) 4 (3%)
![Page 7: A Systematic Review of A&F interventions: the good, the bad, and the ugly](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070404/56813bbb550346895da4ea72/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
What exactly?FB about Yes No Unclear
Behaviour 111 (79%) 9 (6%) 20 (15%)
Outcomes 20 (14%) 102 (73%) 18 (13%)
Other 45 (32%) 95 (68%) n/a
Individuals Performance
81 (58%) 50 (36%) 9 (6%)
Groups Performance
90 (64%) 38 (27%) 12 (9%)
Aggregate data 114 (81%) 15 (11%) 11 (8%)
Individual data 35 (25%) 95 (68%) 10 (7%)
![Page 8: A Systematic Review of A&F interventions: the good, the bad, and the ugly](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070404/56813bbb550346895da4ea72/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
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
![Page 9: A Systematic Review of A&F interventions: the good, the bad, and the ugly](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070404/56813bbb550346895da4ea72/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
What exactly?
• Was the FB graphical?
• Did the FB address the behaviour to be changed?
• Was there a clear comparison in the FB?
Yes No Unclear
124 (89%) 9 (6%) 7 (5%)
Yes No Unclear
47 (36%) 73 (52%) 20 (14%)
Yes No
104 (74%) 36 (26%)
![Page 10: A Systematic Review of A&F interventions: the good, the bad, and the ugly](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070404/56813bbb550346895da4ea72/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
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
![Page 11: A Systematic Review of A&F interventions: the good, the bad, and the ugly](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070404/56813bbb550346895da4ea72/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
How delivered?
• Was the FB given face to face?
Yes No Unclear
62 (44%) 68 (49%) 10 (7%)
![Page 12: A Systematic Review of A&F interventions: the good, the bad, and the ugly](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070404/56813bbb550346895da4ea72/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
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
![Page 13: A Systematic Review of A&F interventions: the good, the bad, and the ugly](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070404/56813bbb550346895da4ea72/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
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
Yes No
88 (63%) 52 (37%)
![Page 14: A Systematic Review of A&F interventions: the good, the bad, and the ugly](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070404/56813bbb550346895da4ea72/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Why A&F?Intervention rationale in A&F trials
Rationale for intervention Count (%)N=140
Empirical (only) 51 (36%)
Intuitive 39 (28%)
No rationale 37 (26%)
Theory 13 (9%)
![Page 15: A Systematic Review of A&F interventions: the good, the bad, and the ugly](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070404/56813bbb550346895da4ea72/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
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”
![Page 16: A Systematic Review of A&F interventions: the good, the bad, and the ugly](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070404/56813bbb550346895da4ea72/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Hospital Report Card: Given to individuals not given to target, about behaviour, about the group, aggregate, comparison: multiple, given 1X, 12 indicators
![Page 17: A Systematic Review of A&F interventions: the good, the bad, and the ugly](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070404/56813bbb550346895da4ea72/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
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)
![Page 18: A Systematic Review of A&F interventions: the good, the bad, and the ugly](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070404/56813bbb550346895da4ea72/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Given to individuals, individual
performance?, ind data,
target yes, behaviour no, monthly for 9
months
![Page 19: A Systematic Review of A&F interventions: the good, the bad, and the ugly](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070404/56813bbb550346895da4ea72/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Self-monitoring, face to face,
given to individual, individual
performance, weekly for 4
months?
“To be displayed in a conspicuous
location in their office”
![Page 20: A Systematic Review of A&F interventions: the good, the bad, and the ugly](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070404/56813bbb550346895da4ea72/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Summary
• Some consistency but also wide variation• Reporting is poor in many areas• Rationale for the intervention is lacking
![Page 21: A Systematic Review of A&F interventions: the good, the bad, and the ugly](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070404/56813bbb550346895da4ea72/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Thank you
![Page 22: A Systematic Review of A&F interventions: the good, the bad, and the ugly](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070404/56813bbb550346895da4ea72/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Given to individuals by mail, individual and group performance, multiple comparisons, quarterly for 18 months (6), target yes, behaviour yes