Search

Background Multifactorial fall prevention trials providing interventions based on individual risk factors have variable success in aged care facilities. To determine configurations of trial features that reduce falls, intervention component analysis (ICA) and qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) were undertaken. Methods Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from a Cochrane Collaboration review (Cameron, 2018) with meta-analysis data, plus trials identified in a systematic search update to December 2021 were included. Meta-analyses were updated. A theory developed through ICA of English publications of trialist's perspectives was assessed through QCA and a subgroup meta-analysis. Results Pooled effectiveness of multifactorial interventions indicated a falls rate ratio of 0.85 (95% confidence interval, CI, 0.65–1.10; I 2 = 85%; 11 trials). All tested interventions targeted both environmental and personal risk factors by including assessment of environmental hazards, a medical or medication review and exercise intervention. ICA emphasised the importance of co-design involving facility staff and managers and tailored intervention delivery to resident's intrinsic factors for successful outcomes. QCA of facility engagement plus tailored delivery was consistent with greater reduction in falls, supported by high consistency (0.91) and coverage (0.85). An associated subgroup meta-analysis demonstrated strong falls reduction without heterogeneity (rate ratio 0.61, 95%CI 0.54–0.69, I 2 = 0%; 7 trials). Conclusion Multifactorial falls prevention interventions should engage aged care staff and managers to implement strategies which include tailored intervention delivery according to each resident's intrinsic factors. Such approaches are consistently associated with a successful reduction in falls, as demonstrated by QCA and subgroup meta-analyses. Co-design approaches may also enhance intervention success. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) was originally developed as a tool for cross‐national comparisons in macrosociology, but its use in evaluation and evidence synthesis of complex interventions is rapidly developing. QCA is theory‐driven and relies on Boolean logic to identify pathways to an outcome (eg, is the intervention effective or not?). We use the example of two linked systematic reviews on weight management programs (WMPs) for adults—one focusing on user views (a "views synthesis") and one focusing on the effectiveness of WMPs incorporating dietary and physical activity—to demonstrate how a synthesis of user views can supply a working theory to structure a QCA. We discuss how a views synthesis is especially apt to supply this working theory because user views can (a) represent a "middle‐range theory" of the intervention; (b) bring a participatory, democratic perspective; and (c) provide an idiographic understanding of how the intervention works that external taxonomies may not be able to furnish. We then discuss the practical role that the views synthesis played in our QCA examining pathways to effectiveness: (a) by suggesting specific intervention features and sharpening the focus on the most salient features to be examined, (b) by supporting interpretation of findings, and (c) by bounding data analysis to prevent data dredging. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: Previous systematic reviews of weight management programmes (WMPs) have not been able to account for heterogeneity of effectiveness within programmes using top‐down behavioural change taxonomies. This could be due to overlapping causal pathways to effectiveness (or lack of effectiveness) in these complex interventions. Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) can help identify these overlapping pathways. Methods: Using trials of adult WMPs with dietary and physical activity components identified from a previous systematic review, we selected the 10 most and 10 least effective interventions by amount of weight loss at 12 months compared to minimal treatment. Using intervention components suggested by synthesis of studies of programme user views, we labelled interventions as to the presence of these components and, using qualitative comparative analysis, developed pathways of component combinations that created the conditions sufficient for interventions to be most effective and least effective. Results: Informed by the synthesis of views studies, we constructed 3 truth tables relating to quality of the user‐provider relationship; perceived high need for guidance from providers; and quality of the relationship between peers in weight management programmes. We found effective interventions were characterized by opportunities to develop supportive relationships with providers or peers, directive provider‐led goal setting and components perceived to foster self‐regulation. Conclusions: Although QCA is an inductive method, this innovative approach has enabled the identification of potentially critical aspects of WMPs, such as the nature of relationships within them, which were previously not considered to be as important as more concrete content such as dietary focus. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: Extensive research effort shows that weight management programmes (WMPs) targeting both diet and exercise are broadly effective. However, the critical features of WMPs remain unclear. Objective: To develop a deeper understanding of WMPs critical features, we undertook a systematic review of qualitative evidence. We sought to understand from a service‐user perspective how programmes are experienced, and may be effective, on the ground. Search strategy: We identified qualitative studies from existing reviews and updated the searches of one review. Inclusion criteria: We included UK studies capturing the views of adult WMP users. Data extraction and synthesis: Thematic analysis was used inductively to code and synthesize the evidence. Main results: Service users were emphatic that supportive relationships, with service providers or WMP peers, are the most critical aspect of WMPs. Supportive relationships were described as providing an extrinsic motivator or “hook” which helped to overcome barriers such as scepticism about dietary advice or a lack confidence to engage in physical activity. Discussion and conclusions: The evidence revealed that service‐users’ understandings of the critical features of WMPs differ from the focus of health promotion guidance or descriptions of evaluated programmes which largely emphasize educational or goal setting aspects of WMPs. Existing programme guidance may not therefore fully address the needs of service users. The study illustrates that the perspectives of service users can reveal unanticipated intervention mechanisms or underemphasized critical features and underscores the value of a holistic understanding about “what happens” in complex psychosocial interventions such as WMPs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Most countries recommend that healthcare workers (HCWs) are vaccinated seasonally against influenza in order to protect themselves and patients. However, in many cases coverage remains low. A range of strategies have been implemented to increase uptake. Qualitative evidence can help in understanding the context of interventions, including why interventions may fail to achieve the desired effect. This study aimed to synthesise evidence on HCWs' perceptions and experiences of vaccination for seasonal influenza.Methods: Systematic review of qualitative evidence. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL and included English-language studies which reported substantive qualitative data on the vaccination of HCWs for seasonal influenza. Findings were synthesised thematically.Results: Twenty-five studies were included in the review. HCWs may be motivated to accept vaccination to protect themselves and their patients against infection. However, a range of beliefs may act as barriers to vaccine uptake, including concerns about side-effects, scepticism about vaccine effectiveness, and the belief that influenza is not a serious illness. HCWs value their autonomy and professional responsibility in making decisions about vaccination. The implementation of interventions to promote vaccination uptake may face barriers both from HCWs' personal beliefs and from the relationships between management and employees within the targeted organisations.Conclusions: HCWs' vaccination behaviour needs to be understood in the context of HCWs' relationships with each other, with management and with patients. Interventions to promote vaccination should take into account both the individual beliefs of targeted HCWs and the organisational context within which they are implemented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

sutcliffe k., caird j., kavanagh j., rees r., oliver k., dickson k., woodman j., barnett-paIge e. & thomas j. (2012) Comparing midwife-led and doctor-led maternity care: a systematic review of reviews. Journal of Advanced Nursing 68(11), 2376-2386. Abstract Aims. A report of a systematic review of reviews which examines the impact of having midwives-led maternity care for low-risk women, rather than physicians. Background. A rising birth rate, increasing complexity of births, and economic constraints pose difficulties for maternity services in the UK. Evidence about the most effective, cost-effective, and efficient ways to give maternity services is needed. Data sources. Searches were carried out in August-September 2009 of ten electronic databases, 16 key nursing and research websites, and reference lists of 56 relevant reviews. We also contacted 38 experts for information. No date restrictions were employed. Review methods. A narrative review of systematic reviews or 'meta review' was conducted using transparent and systematic procedures to limit bias at all stages. Systematic reviews that compared midwife-led care during pregnancy and birth with physician-led care were eligible for inclusion. Results. Three meta-analytic reviews were included. Midwife-led care for low-risk women was found to be better for a range of maternal outcomes, reduced the number of procedures in labour, and increased satisfaction with care. For some maternal, foetal, and neonatal outcomes reviews found no evidence that care led by midwives is different to that led by physicians. No adverse outcomes associated with midwife-led care were identified. Conclusions. For low-risk women, health and other benefits can result from having their maternity care led by midwives rather than physicians. Moreover, there appear to be no negative impacts on mothers and infants receiving midwife-led care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cardiovascular risk prediction models are widely used to help individuals understand risk and make decisions. Systematic review of qualitative evidence. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL. We included English-language qualitative studies on the communication of cardiovascular risk. We assessed study quality using Hawker et al.'s tool and synthesised data thematically. Thirty-seven studies were included. Many patients think that risk scores are of limited practical value. Other sources of information feed into informal estimates of risk, which may lead patients to reject the results of clinical risk assessment when the two conflict. Clinicians identify a number of barriers to risk communication, including patients' limited understanding of risk and excessive anxiety. They use a range of strategies for adapting risk communication. Both clinicians and individuals express specific preferences for risk communication formats. Ways of communicating risk that provide some comparison or reference point seem more promising. The broader context of communication around risk may be more important than the risk scoring instrument. Risk communication interventions, in practice, may be more about appeals to emotion than a rationalistic model of decision-making. • Patients often think that cardiovascular risk scores are irrelevant. • Patients use a range of information to understand risk informally. • Clinicians adapt risk communication to individual patients. • The lack of a comparison point is a barrier to patients' understanding of risk scores. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]