scholarly journals Determining the influence of intervention characteristics on implementation success requires reliable and valid measures: Results from a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 263348952199419
Author(s):  
Cara C Lewis ◽  
Kayne Mettert ◽  
Aaron R Lyon
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Psychometric Properties ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Quality Measures ◽  
Measure Development ◽  
Relative Advantage ◽  
Design Quality ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Evidence Strength

Background: Despite their inclusion in Rogers’ seminal diffusion of innovations theory, few implementation studies empirically evaluate the role of intervention characteristics. Now, with growing evidence on the role of adaptation in implementation, high-quality measures of characteristics such as adaptability, trialability, and complexity are needed. Only two systematic reviews of implementation measures captured those related to the intervention or innovation and their assessment of psychometric properties was limited. This manuscript reports on the results of eight systematic reviews of measures of intervention characteristics with nuanced data regarding a broad range of psychometric properties. Methods: The systematic review proceeded in three phases. Phase I, data collection, involved search string generation, title and abstract screening, full text review, construct assignment, and citation searches. Phase II, data extraction, involved coding psychometric information. Phase III, data analysis, involved two trained specialists independently rating each measure using PAPERS (Psychometric And Pragmatic Evidence Rating Scales). Results: Searches identified 16 measures or scales: zero for intervention source, one for evidence strength and quality, nine for relative advantage, five for adaptability, six for trialability, nine for complexity, and two for design quality and packaging. Information about internal consistency and norms was available for most measures, whereas information about other psychometric properties was most often not available. Ratings for psychometric properties fell in the range of “poor” to “good.” Conclusion: The results of this review confirm that few implementation scholars are examining the role of intervention characteristics in behavioral health studies. Significant work is needed to both develop new measures (e.g., for intervention source) and build psychometric evidence for existing measures in this forgotten domain. Plain Language Summary Intervention characteristics have long been perceived as critical factors that directly influence the rate of adopting an innovation. It remains unclear the extent to which intervention characteristics including relative advantage, complexity, trialability, intervention source, design quality and packaging, evidence strength and quality, adaptability, and cost impact implementation of evidence-based practices in behavioral health settings. To unpack the differential influence of these factors, high quality measures are needed. Systematic reviews can identify measures and synthesize the data regarding their quality to identify gaps in the field and inform measure development and testing efforts. Two previous reviews identified measures of intervention characteristics, but they did not provide information about the extent of the existing evidence nor did they evaluate the host of evidence available for identified measures. This manuscript summarizes the results of nine systematic reviews (i.e., one for each of the factors listed above) for which 16 unique measures or scales were identified. The nuanced findings will help direct measure development work in this forgotten domain.

scholarly journals Role of Dietary Habits in the Prevention of Diverticular Disease Complications: A Systematic Review

Nutrients ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 1288
Author(s):  
Marilia Carabotti ◽  
Francesca Falangone ◽  
Rosario Cuomo ◽  
Bruno Annibale
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Diverticular Disease ◽  
Dietary Habits ◽  
Acute Diverticulitis ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Diverticular Bleeding ◽  
Recurrent Diverticulitis ◽  
Increased Risk

Recent evidence showed that dietary habits play a role as risk factors for the development of diverticular complications. This systematic review aims to assess the effect of dietary habits in the prevention of diverticula complications (i.e., acute diverticulitis and diverticula bleeding) in patients with diverticula disease. PubMed and Scopus databases were searched up to 19 January 2021, 330 records were identified, and 8 articles met the eligibility criteria and were subjected to data extraction. The quality of the studies was evaluated by the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment form. No study meets the criteria for being a high-quality study. A high intake of fiber was associated to a decreased risk of diverticulitis or hospitalization due to diverticular disease, with a protective effect for fruits and cereal fiber, but not for vegetable fiber; whereas, a high red meat consumption and a generally Western dietary pattern were associated with an increased risk of diverticulitis. Alcohol use seemed to be associated to diverticular bleeding, but not to recurrent diverticulitis or diverticular complications. Further high-quality studies are needed to better define these associations. It is mandatory to ascertain the role of dietary habits for the development of recurrent acute diverticulitis and diverticular bleeding.

scholarly journals Transforming the systematic review service: a team-based model to support the educational needs of researchers

2018 ◽  
Vol 106 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie Clare Roth
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Educational Needs ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Educational Services ◽  
Educational Service ◽  
Service Model ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Health Care Settings

To meet the current needs of researchers who perform systematic reviews in health care settings, libraries need to provide high-quality educational services for researchers as part of their systematic review services. A team of librarians with diverse skills is also important for ensuring the growth and sustainability of systematic review services. This commentary describes a new team-based systematic review service model that can transform systematic review services by providing a pathway for librarians to offer a comprehensive educational service for systematic review research in a variety of health sciences library settings.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of Global Postural Reeducation in Ankylosing Spondylitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (9) ◽  
pp. 2696
Author(s):  
Gloria Gonzalez-Medina ◽  
Veronica Perez-Cabezas ◽  
Antonio-Jesus Marin-Paz ◽  
Alejandro Galán-Mercant ◽  
Carmen Ruiz-Molinero ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Ankylosing Spondylitis ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Activity Index ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Disease Activity Index ◽  
Spinal Mobility ◽  
Electronic Library ◽  
Specific Population

The aim of this study was to determine the role of global postural reeducation for people with ankylosing spondylitis. We compared the effects of treatments on pain, dysfunction (using the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index and Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index), range of motion, and chest expansion in a specific population aged over 18 years old with ankylosing spondylitis. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statements. The search was conducted using the PubMed, Physiotherapy Database (PEDro), Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO), and Web of Science (WoS) databases. Clinical trials and systematic reviews/meta-analysis were reviewed. Results: 154 studies were found. Finally, four were included. Conclusions: global postural reeducation is beneficial for ankylosing spondylitis, but no more so than other conventional treatments, except for spinal mobility, where Global Postural Reeducation demonstrated an advantage.

scholarly journals A Systematic Review of Quality Measures for Inflammatory Arthritis

2017 ◽  
Vol 45 (2) ◽  
pp. 274-283 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Cooper ◽  
Azin Rouhi ◽  
Claire E.H. Barber
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Los Angeles ◽  
Inflammatory Arthritis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Quality Measures ◽  
Measure Development ◽  
Medical Subject Headings ◽  
Modified Delphi ◽  
Outcomes Of Care ◽  
Development Context

Objective.To conduct a systematic review and quality appraisal of quality measures for inflammatory arthritis, including rheumatoid arthritis (RA), spondyloarthritis, psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA).Methods.Embase, MEDLINE, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) were searched from January 1, 2000, to October 23, 2016, using Medical Subject Headings terms for inflammatory arthritis and quality measures. A “grey literature” search of international arthritis organizations and quality measure libraries was also conducted. Two reviewers independently considered the papers for inclusion, with disagreements resolved by consensus. A modified guideline appraisal tool (AGREE II) was used to appraise the measure development process, which determined final inclusion. Measures were abstracted in duplicate and categorized into themes, measure type, and domains of quality.Results.Thirteen measurement sets were included from 4 countries (United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Netherlands) and 1 European consortium. They included 10 sets on RA and 1 each for PsA, inflammatory arthritis, and JIA. There were 161 unique individual measures (136 process, 20 structure, and 5 outcome). Major themes included assessment, medications, and comorbidities. Measure development methods were varied, including RAND/University of California, Los Angeles appropriateness methodology, prioritization exercises, or other modified-Delphi methods. Inclusion of patients occurred in 77% of development groups. Discussion of barriers to measurement was infrequent.Conclusion.Inflammatory arthritis quality measures cover a diversity of themes encompassing process, structure, and outcomes of care across the 6 domains of quality. However, between organizations, measure development is not standardized. Local assessment of measurement feasibility before use outside the original development context is recommended.

scholarly journals Artificial Intelligence-Aid Colonoscopy Vs. Conventional Colonoscopy for Polyp and Adenoma Detection: A Systematic Review of 7 Discordant Meta-Analyses

2022 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hui Pan ◽  
Mingyan Cai ◽  
Qi Liao ◽  
Yong Jiang ◽  
Yige Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Detection Rate ◽  
Conventional Colonoscopy ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Decision Algorithm ◽  
Adenoma Detection ◽  
Meta Analyses

Objectives: Multiple meta-analyses which investigated the comparative efficacy and safety of artificial intelligence (AI)-aid colonoscopy (AIC) vs. conventional colonoscopy (CC) in the detection of polyp and adenoma have been published. However, a definitive conclusion has not yet been generated. This systematic review selected from discordant meta-analyses to draw a definitive conclusion about whether AIC is better than CC for the detection of polyp and adenoma.Methods: We comprehensively searched potentially eligible literature in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, and China National Knowledgement Infrastructure (CNKI) databases from their inceptions until to April 2021. Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) instrument was used to assess the methodological quality. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist was used to assess the reporting quality. Two investigators independently used the Jadad decision algorithm to select high-quality meta-analyses which summarized the best available evidence.Results: Seven meta-analyses met our selection criteria finally. AMSTAR score ranged from 8 to 10, and PRISMA score ranged from 23 to 26. According to the Jadad decision algorithm, two high-quality meta-analyses were selected. These two meta-analyses suggested that AIC was superior to CC for colonoscopy outcomes, especially for polyp detection rate (PDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR).Conclusion: Based on the best available evidence, we conclude that AIC should be preferentially selected for the route screening of colorectal lesions because it has potential value of increasing the polyp and adenoma detection. However, the continued improvement of AIC in differentiating the shape and pathology of colorectal lesions is needed.

P14.71 An assessment of the reporting and methodological quality of meningioma systematic reviews and meta-analyses

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. ii51-ii52
Author(s):  
A M George ◽  
S Gupta ◽  
S M Keshwara ◽  
M A Mustafa ◽  
C S Gillespie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Neurofibromatosis Type ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract BACKGROUND Systematic reviews and meta-analyses constitute the highest level of research evidence and for a disease with limited clinical trial activity, are often relied upon to help inform clinical practice. This review of reviews evaluates both the reporting & methodological quality of meningioma evidence syntheses. MATERIAL AND METHODS Potentially eligible meningioma reviews published between 1st January 1990 and 31st December 2020 were identified from eight electronic databases. Inclusion required the study to meet the Cochrane guideline definition of a systematic review or meta-analysis. Reviews concerning neurofibromatosis type 2, spinal and pediatric meningiomas were excluded. The reporting and methodological quality of articles were assessed against the following modified guidelines: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA), A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR2) and the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) guidelines. RESULTS 117 systematic reviews were identified, 57 of which included meta-analysis (48.7%). The number of meningioma systematic reviews published each year has increased with 63 studies (53.9%) published between 01/2018 and 12/2020. A median of 17 studies (IQR 9–29) were included per review. Impact factor of journals publishing a systematic review with or without a meta-analysis was similar (median 2.3 vs 1.8, P=0.397). The mean PRISMA scores for systematic reviews with a meta-analysis was 21.11 (SD 4.1, 78% adherence) and without was 13.89 (SD 3.4, 63% adherence). Twenty-nine systematic reviews with meta-analysis (51%) and 11 without meta-analysis (18%) achieved greater than 80% adherence to PRISMA recommendations. Methodological quality assessment using AMSTAR2 revealed one study (0.9%) as high quality whilst 111 (94.8%) studies were graded as critically low. One hundred and two articles (87.2%) did not utilize a comprehensive search strategy as defined by the AMSTAR2 tool. Ninety-nine studies (84.6%) obtained a high level of concern for potential bias as per the ROBIS assessment. One hundred and eight articles (92.3%) failed to present information that a protocol had been established prior to study commencement and 76 articles (65.0%) did not conduct a risk of bias assessment. Across the three tools, domains relating to the establishment of a protocol prior to review commencement and conducting appropriate risk of bias assessments were frequently low scoring. CONCLUSION Overall reporting and methodological quality of meningioma systematic reviews was sub-optimal. Established critical appraisal tools and reporting guidelines should be utilized a priori to assist in producing high-quality systematic reviews.

scholarly journals Systematic review methods for the Pregnancy and Birth to 24 Months Project

2019 ◽  
Vol 109 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 698S-704S ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie E Obbagy ◽  
Joanne M Spahn ◽  
Yat Ping Wong ◽  
Tricia L Psota ◽  
Maureen K Spill ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
State Of The Art ◽  
Nutrition Policy ◽  
Important Food ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Systematic Review Methods ◽  
Food And Nutrition ◽  
Pregnancy And Birth

ABSTRACTThe USDA's Nutrition Evidence Systematic Review (NESR) team specializes in conducting systematic reviews (SRs) to inform federal nutrition policy and programs. The NESR's dedicated staff collaborate with leading scientists to answer important food- and nutrition-related public health questions by objectively reviewing, evaluating, and synthesizing research using state-of-the-art methodology. NESR uses a rigorous, protocol-driven methodology that is designed to minimize bias; to ensure availability of SRs that are relevant, timely, and high quality; and to ensure transparency and reproducibility of findings. This article describes the methods used by NESR to conduct a series of SRs on diet and health in infants, toddlers, and women who are pregnant as part of the Pregnancy and Birth to 24 Months Project.

scholarly journals Quality Measures in Foot and Ankle Care

2017 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 2473011417S0004
Author(s):  
Grace Xiong ◽  
Loretta Chou ◽  
Chase Bennett ◽  
Robin Kamal
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Healthcare Delivery ◽  
Quality Measures ◽  
Measure Development ◽  
Foot And Ankle ◽  
Foot Care ◽  
Quality Reporting ◽  
National Quality ◽  
Clinical Disorders

Category: Ankle, Ankle Arthritis, Arthroscopy, Bunion, Diabetes, Hindfoot, Trauma Introduction/Purpose: National healthcare delivery systems are shifting to value-based models. Understanding quality measures used to assess performance is important as they may be operationalized in alternative payment models, such as bundled payment programs, or quality reporting programs, such as the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System. Previous literature has shown that quality measures in other orthopaedic subspecialties disproportionately focus on effective clinical care or processes of care, while ignoring patient outcomes. We completed a systematic review of quality measures and candidate quality measures that address foot and ankle care to identify gaps in current measures and to inform future measure development initiatives. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of the National Quality Forum, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the Physician Quality Reporting System for quality measures related to foot and ankle care. We also reviewed candidate quality measures from clinical practice guidelines (CPG) in the literature meeting Institute of Medicine CPG criteria. Measures were classified by clinical entity, Donabedian domain (structure, process, or outcome), and the National Quality Strategy (NQS) priority that they addressed. Results: We identified 12 quality measures and 16 candidate measures. Quality measures addressed NQS priorities of “Effective Clinical Care” (33%), “Communication and Coordination of Care” (58%), “Patient Safety” (25%), “Community and Population Health” (8%), and “Person and Caregiver Centered Experience and Outcomes” (8%). All candidate measures addressed “Effective Clinical Care”. Furthermore, 83% of quality measures and 94% of candidates were process measures, 17% of quality and 6% of candidate were outcome measures, and there were no structure measures. Diabetic foot care was the most commonly addressed clinical entity for both quality measures (58%) and candidate measures (69%). Conclusion: Foot and ankle quality measures and candidate measures disproportionately assess effective clinical care and processes of healthcare delivery. Additionally, few clinical disorders within the field are included, focusing primarily on diabetic foot care. Currently only two outcome measures exist, leaving an opportunity for outcome measure development. These patterns are reflected in candidate measures, suggesting that the narrow focus of quality measures will continue unless efforts are made to develop more comprehensive measures. Additional measures that address a broader array of clinical disorders across the spectrum of NQS priorities and Donabedian domains are needed to prepare for a quality-based healthcare system.

Applying the evidence to your patient: The role of systematic reviews in your knowledge tool box

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (12) ◽  
pp. 747-753
Author(s):  
David Tovey
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Knowledge Resource

This article explores how systematic reviews can provide a useful addition to a general practitioner’s knowledge toolbox and explores scenarios where systematic reviews can be used to help inform a decision. The article also explores how the trustworthiness of the information from a systematic review or indeed any knowledge resource, can be assessed, and describes some of the ways that systematic reviews are changing. A follow up article will explore, in more detail, how to appraise, understand and use the information in a systematic review.

THE ROLE OF LEARNING IN LOGIC SYNTHESIS

1990 ◽  
Vol 04 (02) ◽  
pp. 167-180 ◽  
Author(s):  
JAMES R. KIPPS ◽  
DANIEL D. GAJSKI
Keyword(s):  
Logic Synthesis ◽  
Technology Mapping ◽  
Specific Design ◽  
Design Quality ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Design Rules ◽  
Rule Based ◽  
Technology Changes ◽  
Explanation Based Learning

The goal of logic synthesis is to obtain high-quality designs from specifications. Current approaches to logic synthesis often trade off design quality for technology independence. In this paper, we present a model of logic synthesis that uses technology-specific design rules and extends rule-based search to functional decomposition and technology mapping. While this model improves design quality by taking advantage of the target technology, it is not robust to technology changes. To improve robustness, we augment the model with two learning components: one for acquiring rules that make use of physical cells in a technology library, and another for acquiring rules that make use of appropriate design styles. These components are related to work in the learning of macro-operators and explanation-based learning.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document