Search

ObjectivesThis research aimed to understand the barriers and facilitators clinicians face in using a digital clinical decision support tool—UpToDate—around the globe.DesignWe used a mixed-methods cohort study design that enrolled 1681 clinicians (physicians, surgeons or physician assistants) who applied for free access to UpToDate through our established donation programme during a 9-week study enrolment period. Eligibility included working outside of the USA for a limited-resource public or non-profit health facility, serving vulnerable populations, having at least intermittent internet access, completing the application in English; and not being otherwise able to afford the subscription.InterventionAfter consenting to study participation, clinicians received a 1-year subscription to UpToDate. They completed a series of surveys over the year, and we collected clickstream data tracking their use of the tool.Primary and secondary outcome measures(1) The variation in use by demographic; (2) the prevalence of barriers and facilitators of use; and (3) the relationship between barriers, facilitators and use.ResultsOf 1681 study enrollees, 69% were men and 71% were between 25 and 35 years old, with the plurality practicing general medicine and the majority in sub-Saharan Africa or Southeast Asia. Of the 11 barriers we assessed, fitting the tool into the workflow was a statistically significant barrier, making clinicians 50% less likely to use it. Of the 10 facilitators we assessed, a supportive professional context and utility were significant drivers of use.ConclusionsThere are several clear barriers and facilitators to promoting the use of digital clinical decision support tools in practice. We recommend tools like UpToDate be implemented with complementary services. These include generating a supportive professional context, helping clinicians realise the tools’ use and working with health systems to better integrate digital, clinical decision support tools into workflows.

Worldwide, leaders are implementing nonpharmaceutical interventions to slow transmission of the novel coronavirus while pursuing vaccines that confer immunity to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. In this article we describe lessons learned from past pandemics and vaccine campaigns about the path to successful vaccine delivery. The historical record suggests that to have a widely immunized population, leaders must invest in evidence-based vaccine delivery strategies that generate demand, allocate and distribute vaccines, and verify coverage. To generate demand, there must be an understanding of the roots of vaccine hesitancy, involvement of trusted sources of authority in advocacy for vaccination, and commitment to longitudinal engagement with communities. To allocate vaccines, qualified organizations and expert coalitions must be allowed to determine evidence-based vaccination approaches and generate the political will to ensure the cooperation of local and national governments. To distribute vaccines, the people and organizations with expertise in manufacturing, supply chains, and last-mile distribution must be positioned to direct efforts. To verify vaccine coverage, vaccination tracking systems that are portable, interoperable, and secure must be identified. Lessons of past pandemics suggest that nations should invest in evidence-informed strategies to ensure that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines protect individuals, suppress transmission, and minimize disruption to health services and livelihoods.

BACKGROUND Evidence-based digital health tools allow clinicians to keep up with the expanding medical literature and provide safer and more accurate care. Understanding users’ online behavior in low-resource settings can inform programs that encourage the use of such tools. Our program collaborates with digital tool providers, including UpToDate, to facilitate free subscriptions for clinicians serving in low-resource settings globally. OBJECTIVE We aimed to define segments of clinicians based on their usage patterns of UpToDate, describe the demographics of those segments, and relate the segments to self-reported professional climate measures. METHODS We collected 12 months of clickstream data (a record of users’ clicks within the tool) as well as repeated surveys. We calculated the total number of sessions, time spent online, type of activity (navigating, reading, or account management), calendar period of use, percentage of days active online, and minutes of use per active day. We defined behavioral segments based on the distributions of these statistics and related them to survey data. RESULTS We enrolled 1681 clinicians from 75 countries over a 9-week period. We based the following five behavioral segments on the length and intensity of use: short-term, light users (420/1681, 25%); short-term, heavy users (252/1681, 15%); long-term, heavy users (403/1681, 24%); long-term, light users (370/1681, 22%); and never-users (252/1681, 15%). Users spent a median of 5 hours using the tool over the year. On days when users logged on, they spent a median of 4.4 minutes online and an average of 71% of their time reading medical content as opposed to navigating or managing their account. Over half (773/1432, 54%) of the users actively used the tool for 48 weeks or more during the 52-week study period. The distribution of segments varied by age, with lighter and less use among those aged 35 years or older compared to that among younger users. The speciality of medicine had the heaviest use, and emergency medicine had the lightest use. Segments varied strongly by geographic region. As for professional climate, most respondents (1429/1681, 85%) reported that clinicians in their area would view the use of a online tool positively, and compared to those who reported other views, these respondents were less likely to be never-users (286/1681, 17% vs 387/1681, 23%) and more likely to be long-term users (655/1681, 39% vs 370/1681, 22%). CONCLUSIONS We believe that these behavioral segments can help inform the implementation of digital health tools, identify users who may need assistance, tailor training and messaging for users, and support research on digital health efforts. Methods for combining clickstream data with demographic and survey data have the potential to inform global health implementation. Our forthcoming analysis will use these methods to better elucidate what drives digital health tool use.

Background Evidence-based digital health tools allow clinicians to keep up with the expanding medical literature and provide safer and more accurate care. Understanding users’ online behavior in low-resource settings can inform programs that encourage the use of such tools. Our program collaborates with digital tool providers, including UpToDate, to facilitate free subscriptions for clinicians serving in low-resource settings globally. Objective We aimed to define segments of clinicians based on their usage patterns of UpToDate, describe the demographics of those segments, and relate the segments to self-reported professional climate measures. Methods We collected 12 months of clickstream data (a record of users’ clicks within the tool) as well as repeated surveys. We calculated the total number of sessions, time spent online, type of activity (navigating, reading, or account management), calendar period of use, percentage of days active online, and minutes of use per active day. We defined behavioral segments based on the distributions of these statistics and related them to survey data. Results We enrolled 1681 clinicians from 75 countries over a 9-week period. We based the following five behavioral segments on the length and intensity of use: short-term, light users (420/1681, 25%); short-term, heavy users (252/1681, 15%); long-term, heavy users (403/1681, 24%); long-term, light users (370/1681, 22%); and never-users (252/1681, 15%). Users spent a median of 5 hours using the tool over the year. On days when users logged on, they spent a median of 4.4 minutes online and an average of 71% of their time reading medical content as opposed to navigating or managing their account. Over half (773/1432, 54%) of the users actively used the tool for 48 weeks or more during the 52-week study period. The distribution of segments varied by age, with lighter and less use among those aged 35 years or older compared to that among younger users. The speciality of medicine had the heaviest use, and emergency medicine had the lightest use. Segments varied strongly by geographic region. As for professional climate, most respondents (1429/1681, 85%) reported that clinicians in their area would view the use of a online tool positively, and compared to those who reported other views, these respondents were less likely to be never-users (286/1681, 17% vs 387/1681, 23%) and more likely to be long-term users (655/1681, 39% vs 370/1681, 22%). Conclusions We believe that these behavioral segments can help inform the implementation of digital health tools, identify users who may need assistance, tailor training and messaging for users, and support research on digital health efforts. Methods for combining clickstream data with demographic and survey data have the potential to inform global health implementation. Our forthcoming analysis will use these methods to better elucidate what drives digital health tool use.

BackgroundEvidence-based practices that reduce childbirth-related morbidity and mortality are core processes to quality of care. In the BetterBirth trial, a matched-pair, cluster-randomised controlled trial of a coaching-based implementation of the WHO Safe Childbirth Checklist (SCC) in Uttar Pradesh, India, we observed a significant increase in adherence to practices, but no reduction in perinatal mortality.MethodsWithin the BetterBirth trial, we observed birth attendants in a subset of study sites providing care to labouring women to assess the adherence to individual and groups of practices. We observed care from admission to the facility until 1 hour post partum. We followed observed women/newborns for 7-day perinatal health outcomes. Using this observational data, we conducted a post-hoc, exploratory analysis to understand the relationship of birth attendants’ practice adherence to perinatal mortality.FindingsAcross 30 primary health facilities, we observed 3274 deliveries and obtained 7-day health outcomes. Adherence to individual practices, containing supply preparation and direct provider care, varied widely (0·51 to 99·78%). We recorded 166 perinatal deaths (50·71 per 1000 births), including 56 (17·1 per 1000) stillbirths. Each additional practice performed was significantly associated with reduced odds of perinatal (OR: 0·82, 95% CI: 0·72, 0·93) and early neonatal mortality (OR: 0·78, 95% CI: 0·71, 0·85). Each additional practice as part of direct provider care was associated strongly with reduced odds of perinatal (OR: 0·73, 95% CI: 0·62, 0·86) and early neonatal mortality (OR: 0·67, 95% CI: 0·56, 0·80). No individual practice or single supply preparation was associated with perinatal mortality.InterpretationAdherence to practices on the WHO SCC is associated with reduced mortality, indicating that adherence is a valid indicator of higher quality of care. However, the causal relationships between practices and outcomes are complex.FundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation.Trial registration detailsClinicalTrials.gov:NCT02148952; Universal Trial Number: U1111-1131-5647.

IntroductionThe 2018 Astana Declaration reaffirmed global commitment to primary healthcare (PHC) as a core strategy to achieve universal health coverage. To meet this potential, PHC in low-income and middle-income countries (LMIC) needs to be strengthened, but research is lacking and fragmented. We conducted a scoping review of the recent literature to assess the state of research on PHC in LMIC and understand where future research is most needed.MethodsGuided by the Primary Healthcare Performance Initiative (PHCPI) conceptual framework, we conducted searches of the peer-reviewed literature on PHC in LMIC published between 2010 (the publication year of the last major review of PHC in LMIC) and 2017. We also conducted country-specific searches to understand performance trajectories in 14 high-performing countries identified in the previous review. Evidence highlights and gaps for each topic area of the PHCPI framework were extracted and summarised.ResultsWe retrieved 5219 articles, 207 of which met final inclusion criteria. Many PHC system inputs such as payment and workforce are well-studied. A number of emerging service delivery innovations have early evidence of success but lack evidence for how to scale more broadly. Community-based PHC systems with supportive governmental policies and financing structures (public and private) consistently promote better outcomes and equity. Among the 14 highlighted countries, most maintained or improved progress in the scope of services, quality, access and financial coverage of PHC during the review time period.ConclusionOur findings revealed a heterogeneous focus of recent literature, with ample evidence for effective PHC policies, payment and other system inputs. More variability was seen in key areas of service delivery, underscoring a need for greater emphasis on implementation science and intervention testing. Future evaluations are needed on PHC system capacities and orientation toward social accountability, innovation, management and population health in order to achieve the promise of PHC.

Background The BetterBirth trial tested the effect of a peer coaching program around the WHO Safe Childbirth Checklist for birth attendants in primary-level facilities in Uttar Pradesh, India on a composite measure of perinatal and maternal mortality and maternal morbidity. This study aimed to examine the adherence to essential birth practices between two different cadres of birth attendants—nurses and auxiliary nurse midwives (ANMs)—during and after a peer coaching intervention for the WHO Safe Childbirth Checklist. Methods This is a secondary analysis of birth attendant characteristics, coaching visits, and behavior uptake during the BetterBirth trial through birth attendant surveys, coach observations, and independent observations. Descriptive statistics were calculated overall, and by staffing cadre (staff nurses and ANMs) for demographic characteristics. Logistic regression using the Pearson overdispersion correction (to account for clustering by site) was used to assess differences between staff nurses and ANMs in the intervention group during regular coaching (2-month time point) and 4 months after the coaching program ended (12-month time point). Results Of the 570 birth attendants who responded to the survey in intervention and control arms, 474 were staff nurses (83.2%) and 96 were ANMs (16.8%). In the intervention arm, more staff nurses (240/260, 92.3%) received coaching at all pause points compared to ANMs (40/53, 75.5%). At baseline, adherence to practices was similar between ANMs and staff nurses (~ 30%). Overall percent adherence to essential birth practices among ANMs and nurses was highest at 2 months after intervention initiation, when frequent coaching visits occurred (68.1% and 64.1%, respectively, p = 0.76). Practice adherence tapered to 49.2% among ANMs and 56.1% among staff nurses at 12 months, which was 4 months after coaching had ended (p = 0.68). Conclusions Overall, ANMs and nurses responded similarly to the coaching intervention with the greatest increase in percent adherence to essential birth practices after 2 months of coaching and subsequent decrease in adherence 4 months after coaching ended. While coaching is an effective strategy to support some aspects of birth attendant competency, the structure, content, and frequency of coaching may need to be customized according to the birth attendant training and competency. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT2148952; Universal Trial Number: U1111–1131-5647.

The BetterBirth Program relied on carefully structured coaching that was multilevel, collaborative, and provider-centered to motivate birth attendants to use the WHO Safe Childbirth Checklist and improve adherence to essential birth practices. It was scaled to 60 sites as part of a randomized controlled trial in Uttar Pradesh, India., Shifting childbirth into facilities has not improved health outcomes for mothers and newborns as significantly as hoped. Improving the quality and safety of care provided during facility-based childbirth requires helping providers to adhere to essential birth practices—evidence-based behaviors that reduce harm to and save lives of mothers and newborns. To achieve this goal, we developed the BetterBirth Program, which we tested in a matched-pair, cluster-randomized controlled trial in Uttar Pradesh, India. The goal of this intervention was to improve adoption and sustained use of the World Health Organization Safe Childbirth Checklist (SCC), an organized collection of 28 essential birth practices that are known to improve the quality of facility-based childbirth care. Here, we describe the BetterBirth Program in detail, including its 4 main features: implementation tools, an implementation strategy of coaching, an implementation pathway (Engage-Launch-Support), and a sustainability plan. This coaching-based implementation of the SCC motivates and empowers care providers to identify, understand, and resolve the barriers they face in using the SCC with the resources already available. We describe important lessons learned from our experience with the BetterBirth Program as it was tested in the BetterBirth Trial. For example, the emphasis on relationship building and respect led to trust between coaches and birth attendants and helped influence change. In addition, the cloud-based data collection and feedback system proved a valuable asset in the coaching process. More research on coaching-based interventions is required to refine our understanding of what works best to improve quality and safety of care in various settings. (After publication of this article, the impact results of the BetterBirth intervention were published in the New England Journal of Medicine [volume 377, pages 2313-2324, doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1701075]. The results showed that the intervention had no significant effect on maternal or perinatal mortality or maternal morbidity, despite having positive effects on essential birth practices.)

Long considered a paragon among low- and middle-income countries in its provision of primary health care, Costa Rica reformed its primary health care system in 1994 using a model that, despite its success, has been generally understudied: basic integrated health care teams. This case study provides a detailed description of Costa Rica's innovative implementation of four critical service delivery reforms and explains how those reforms supported the provision of the four essential functions of primary health care: first-contact access, coordination, continuity, and comprehensiveness. As countries around the world pursue high-quality universal health coverage to attain the Sustainable Development Goals, Costa Rica's experiences provide valuable lessons about both the types of primary health care reforms needed and potential mechanisms through which these reforms can be successfully implemented.

To provide a description of communication breakdowns and to identify interventions to improve surgical decision making for elderly patients with serious illness and acute, life-threatening surgical conditions.Communication between surgeons, patients, and surrogates about goals of treatment plays an important and understudied role in determining the surgical interventions elderly patients with serious illness receive. Communication breakdowns may lead to nonbeneficial procedures in acute events near the end of life.We review the available literature on factors that lead to communication challenges and nonbeneficial surgery at the end of life. We use this review to identify solutions for navigating surgical decision making for seriously ill elderly patients with acute surgical conditions.Surgeon, patient, surrogate, and systemic factors-including time constraints, inadequate provider communication skills and training, uncertainty about prognosis, patient and surrogate anxiety and fear of inaction, and limitations in advance care planning-contribute to communication challenges and nonbeneficial surgery at the end of life. Surgeons could accomplish more effective communication with seriously ill elderly patients if they had a structured, standardized approach to exploring patients' preferences and to integrating those preferences into surgical decisions in the acute setting.Improved communication among surgeons, patients, and surrogates is necessary to ensure that patients receive the care that they want and to avoid nonbeneficial treatment. Further research is needed to learn how to best structure these conversations in the emergency surgical setting.

Shifting childbirth into facilities has not improved health outcomes for mothers and newborns as significantly as hoped. Improving the quality and safety of care provided during facility-based childbirth requires helping providers to adhere to essential birth practices—evidence-based behaviors that reduce harm to and save lives of mothers and newborns. To achieve this goal, we developed the BetterBirth Program, which we tested in a matched-pair, cluster-randomized controlled trial in Uttar Pradesh, India. The goal of this intervention was to improve adoption and sustained use of the World Health Organization Safe Childbirth Checklist (SCC), an organized collection of 28 essential birth practices that are known to improve the quality of facility-based childbirth care. Here, we describe the BetterBirth Program in detail, including its 4 main features: implementation tools, an implementation strategy of coaching, an implementation pathway (Engage-Launch-Support), and a sustainability plan. This coaching-based implementation of the SCC motivates and empowers care providers to identify, understand, and resolve the barriers they face in using the SCC with the resources already available. We describe important lessons learned from our experience with the BetterBirth Program as it was tested in the BetterBirth Trial. For example, the emphasis on relationship building and respect led to trust between coaches and birth attendants and helped influence change. In addition, the cloud-based data collection and feedback system proved a valuable asset in the coaching process. More research on coaching-based interventions is required to refine our understanding of what works best to improve quality and safety of care in various settings. (After publication of this article, the impact results of the BetterBirth intervention were published in the New England Journal of Medicine [volume 377, pages 2313-2324, doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1701075]. The results showed that the intervention had no significant effect on maternal or perinatal mortality or maternal morbidity, despite having positive effects on essential birth practices.)