Search

Background The way that healthcare services are organised and delivered (termed ‘healthcare delivery arrangements’) is a key aspect of a health system. Changing the way health care is delivered, for example, task shifting that delivers the same care at lower cost, may be one way of improving healthcare system sustainability. We synthesised the existing randomised trial evidence to compare the effects of alternative healthcare delivery arrangements versus usual care in Nepal.Methods For eligible studies published since 2005, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Scopus, the WHO clinical trials registry and NepJOL on 31 October 2024. Two authors independently assessed studies for eligibility, extracted data and evaluated the risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and certainty of evidence using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations. We calculated risk ratios (RRs), mean differences (MDs) and percentage points (PPs) with 95% CIs for the outcomes and performed meta-analysis where appropriate.Results Four studies met the inclusion criteria. One evaluated task shifting, two information and communication technology, and one care coordination. No meta-analyses were performed. Low certainty evidence indicates task shifting of medical abortion by doctors to midlevel providers may result in equivalent complete abortion (RR: 2.55, 95% CI: 0.82 to 4.27). Similarly, the use of a mobile phone call reminder may improve on-time medicine collection among patients with HIV compared with usual care (RR: 1.29, 95% CI: 1.12 to 1.48), while the integration of postpartum family planning and postpartum intrauterine contraceptive device (PPIUCD) insertion with maternity services may improve PPIUCD uptake compared with usual care (PP: 0.173, 95% CI: 0.098 to 0.246).Conclusion More evaluation is needed for alternative delivery arrangements due to limited low-certainty evidence from current trials. There was insufficient evidence on outcomes such as cost, safety, and patient and provider perspectives.PROSPERO registration number CRD42022327298.

Introduction Consistent evidence shows pathology services are overused worldwide and that about one-third of testing is unnecessary. Audit and feedback (AF) is effective for improving care but few trials evaluating AF to reduce pathology test requesting in primary care have been conducted. The aim of this trial is to estimate the effectiveness of AF for reducing requests for commonly overused pathology test combinations by high-requesting Australian general practitioners (GPs) compared with no intervention control. A secondary aim is to evaluate which forms of AF are most effective.Methods and analysis This is a factorial cluster randomised trial conducted in Australian general practice. It uses routinely collected Medicare Benefits Schedule data to identify the study population, apply eligibility criteria, generate the interventions and analyse outcomes. On 12 May 2022, all eligible GPs were simultaneously randomised to either no intervention control or to one of eight intervention groups. GPs allocated to an intervention group received individualised AF on their rate of requesting of pathology test combinations compared with their GP peers. Three separate elements of the AF intervention will be evaluated when outcome data become available on 11 August 2023: (1) invitation to participate in continuing professional development-accredited education on appropriate pathology requesting, (2) provision of cost information on pathology test combinations and (3) format of feedback. The primary outcome is the overall rate of requesting of any of the displayed combinations of pathology tests of GPs over 6 months following intervention delivery. With 3371 clusters, assuming no interaction and similar effects for each intervention, we anticipate over 95% power to detect a difference of 4.4 requests in the mean rate of pathology test combination requests between the control and intervention groups.Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval was received from the Bond University Human Research Ethics Committee (#JH03507; approved 30 November 2021). The results of this study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences. Reporting will adhere to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials.Trial registration number ACTRN12622000566730.

Background and aimsHigh quality clinical research that addresses important questions requires significant resources. In resource-constrained environments, projects will therefore need to be prioritized. The Australia and New Zealand Musculoskeletal (ANZMUSC) Clinical Trials Network aimed to develop a stakeholder-based, transparent, easily implementable tool that provides a score for the 'importance' of a research question which could be used to rank research projects in order of importance.MethodsUsing a mixed-methods, multi-stage approach that included a Delphi survey, consensus workshop, inter-rater reliability testing, validity testing and calibration using a discrete-choice methodology, the Research Question Importance Tool (ANZMUSC-RQIT) was developed. The tool incorporated broad stakeholder opinion, including consumers, at each stage and is designed for scoring by committee consensus.ResultsThe ANZMUSC-RQIT tool consists of 5 dimensions (compared to 6 dimensions for an earlier version of RQIT): (1) extent of stakeholder consensus, (2) social burden of health condition, (3) patient burden of health condition, (4) anticipated effectiveness of proposed intervention, and (5) extent to which health equity is addressed by the research. Each dimension is assessed by defining ordered levels of a relevant attribute and by assigning a score to each level. The scores for the dimensions are then summed to obtain an overall ANZMUSC-RQIT score, which represents the importance of the research question. The result is a score on an interval scale with an arbitrary unit, ranging from 0 (minimal importance) to 1000. The ANZMUSC-RQIT dimensions can be reliably ordered by committee consensus (ICC 0.73-0.93) and the overall score is positively associated with citation count (standardised regression coefficient 0.33, pConclusionWe propose that the ANZMUSC-RQIT is a useful tool for prioritising the importance of a research question.

ObjectivesTo determine the availability and readiness of health facilities to provide family planning, antenatal care and basic emergency obstetric and newborn care in Nepal in 2021. Secondary objectives were to identify progress since 2015 and factors associated with readiness.MethodThis is a secondary analysis of cross-sectional Nepal Health Facility Survey (NHFS) data collected in 2015 and 2021. The main outcome measures were availability and readiness of family planning, antenatal care, and basic emergency obstetric and newborn care services. Readiness indices were calculated using WHO-recommended service availability and readiness assessment (SARA) methods (score range 0 to 100%, with 100% indicating facilities are fully prepared to provide a specific service). We used independent t-tests to compare readiness indices in 2015 and 2021. Factors potentially associated with readiness (rurality setting, ecological region, managing authority, management meeting, quality assurance activities, and external supervision) were explored using multivariable linear regression.ResultsThere were 940 and 1565 eligible health facilities in the 2015 and 2021 surveys, respectively. Nearly all health facilities provided family planning (2015: n = 919 (97.8%); 2021: n = 1530 (97.8%)) and antenatal care services (2015: n = 920 (97.8%); 2021: n = 1538 (98.3%)) in both years, but only half provided delivery services (2015: n = 457 (48.6%); 2021: n = 804 (51.4%)). There were suboptimal improvements in readiness indices over time: (2015-21: family planning 68.0% to 70.9%, pConclusionsReadiness to deliver family planning, antenatal care and basic emergency obstetric and newborn care services in Nepal remains inadequate, with little improvement observed over six years.

Introduction Little is known about how early (eg, commencing antenatally or in the first 12 months after birth) obesity prevention interventions seek to change behaviour and which components are or are not effective. This study aims to (1) characterise early obesity prevention interventions in terms of target behaviours, delivery features and behaviour change techniques (BCTs), (2) explore similarities and differences in BCTs used to target behaviours and (3) explore effectiveness of intervention components in preventing childhood obesity.Methods and analysis Annual comprehensive systematic searches will be performed in Epub Ahead of Print/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane (CENTRAL), CINAHL, PsycINFO, as well as clinical trial registries. Eligible randomised controlled trials of behavioural interventions to prevent childhood obesity commencing antenatally or in the first year after birth will be invited to join the Transforming Obesity in CHILDren Collaboration. Standard ontologies will be used to code target behaviours, delivery features and BCTs in both published and unpublished intervention materials provided by trialists. Narrative syntheses will be performed to summarise intervention components and compare applied BCTs by types of target behaviours. Exploratory analyses will be undertaken to assess effectiveness of intervention components.Ethics and dissemination The study has been approved by The University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (project no. 2020/273) and Flinders University Social and Behavioural Research Ethics Committee (project no. HREC CIA2133-1). The study’s findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and targeted communication with key stakeholders.PROSPERO registration number CRD42020177408.

Objectives To investigate (1) self-reported societal comprehension of common and usually non-serious terms found in lumbar spine imaging reports and (2) its relationship to perceived seriousness, likely persistence of low back pain (LBP), fear of movement, back beliefs and history and intensity of LBP.Design Cross-sectional online survey of the general public.Setting Five English-speaking countries: UK, USA, Canada, New Zealand and Australia.Participants Adults (age >18 years) with or without a history of LBP recruited in April 2019 with quotas for country, age and gender.Primary and secondary outcome measures Self-reported understanding of 14 terms (annular fissure, disc bulge, disc degeneration, disc extrusion, disc height loss, disc protrusion, disc signal loss, facet joint degeneration, high intensity zone, mild canal stenosis, Modic changes, nerve root contact, spondylolisthesis and spondylosis) commonly found in lumbar spine imaging reports. For each term, we also elicited worry about its seriousness, and whether its presence would indicate pain persistence and prompt fear of movement.Results From 774 responses, we included 677 (87.5%) with complete and valid responses. 577 (85%) participants had a current or past history of LBP of whom 251 (44%) had received lumbar spine imaging. Self-reported understanding of all terms was poor. At best, 235 (35%) reported understanding the term ‘disc degeneration’, while only 71 (10.5%) reported understanding the term ‘Modic changes’. For all terms, a moderate to large proportion of participants (range 59%–71%), considered they indicated a serious back problem, that pain might persist (range 52%–71%) and they would be fearful of movement (range 42%–57%).Conclusion Common and usually non-serious terms in lumbar spine imaging reports are poorly understood by the general population and may contribute to the burden of LBP.Trial registration number ACTRN12619000545167.

Objective To develop and user test a patient decision aid for people with subacromial pain syndrome that presents evidence-based information on the benefits and harms of subacromial decompression surgery and rotator cuff repair surgery.Design Mixed-methods study outlining the development of a patient decision aid.Setting We assembled a multidisciplinary steering group, and used existing decision aids and decision science to draft the decision aid. Participants were recruited through social media (not restricted by country nor setting), local hospitals and the authors’ collaboration network.Participants People with shoulder pain and health professionals who manage people with shoulder pain.Primary and secondary outcomes We interviewed participants to gather feedback on the decision aid, assessed useability and acceptability (using qualitative and quantitative methods) and performed iterative cycles of redrafting the decision aid and reinterviewing participants as necessary. Interview data were analysed using thematic analysis. Quantitative data were summarised descriptively.Results We interviewed 26 health professionals (11 physiotherapists, 7 orthopaedic surgeons, 4 general practitioners, 3 chiropractors and 1 osteopath) and 14 people with shoulder pain. Most health professionals and people with shoulder pain rated all aspects of decision aid acceptability as adequate-to-excellent (eg, length, presentation, comprehensibility). Interviews highlighted agreement among health professionals and people with shoulder pain on most aspects of the decision aid (eg, treatment options, summary of benefits, harms and practical issues, questions to ask a health professional, graphics, formatting). However, some aspects of the decision aid elicited divergent views among health professionals (eg, causes and symptoms of shoulder pain, evidence on benefits and harms).Conclusion This decision aid could be an acceptable and valuable tool for helping people with subacromial pain syndrome make informed treatment choices. A randomised controlled trial evaluating whether this decision aid reduces people’s intentions to undergo shoulder surgery and facilitates informed treatment choices is underway.Trial registration number ACTRN12621000992808

Introduction Shoulder conditions are a major cause of morbidity in the general population. Many clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for shoulder conditions have been developed. Their purpose is to provide evidence-based recommendations to assist clinicians in providing optimal care to maximise patient outcomes. The aim of this systematic review is to identify, appraise, and compare the content and quality of CPGs for atraumatic shoulder conditions.Methods and analysis CPGs for atraumatic shoulder conditions will be included provided they make recommendations about diagnosis and/or management, are identified by their authors as a guideline and are consistent with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II definition of a guideline. A systematic search of electronic databases, online guideline repositories and the websites of relevant professional societies will be conducted to identify eligible CPGs. Search terms relating to shoulder conditions (eg, ‘adhesive capsulitis’, ‘rotator cuff’ and ‘bursitis’) will be combined with a validated search filter for CPGs. Pairs of independent reviewers will determine eligibility of CPGs identified by the search. Quality appraisal of included CPGs will be performed using the AGREE II instrument. Recommendations from each CPG and how they were determined will be extracted and compared across similar CPGs. Results from this systematic review will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement.Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval is not required for this systematic review. The results from this study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and disseminated to professional societies that publish shoulder CPGs, clinical policy groups, clinicians, researchers and consumers.PROSPERO registration number CRD42020182723.

Objectives Somatosensory loss is common after stroke with one-in-two individuals affected. Although clinical practice guidelines recommend providing somatosensory rehabilitation, this impairment often remains unassessed and untreated. To address the gap between guideline recommendations and clinical practice, this study sought to understand the factors influencing delivery of evidence-based upper limb sensory rehabilitation after stroke.Design Qualitative study involving focus groups and interviews. Data analysis used an inductive approach (thematic analysis) and deductive analysis using implementation theory (the Theoretical Domains Framework and Normalisation Process Theory).Setting Eight healthcare organisations in metropolitan and regional areas of Victoria and New South Wales, Australia.Participants Eighty-seven rehabilitation therapists (79% occupational therapists and 21% physiotherapists) were purposively sampled and participated in a knowledge translation study with staggered recruitment from 2014 to 2018.Results Three types of factors influenced therapists’ delivery of upper limb somatosensory rehabilitation: individual (‘The uncertain, unskilled therapist’), patient (‘Patient understanding and priorities’) and organisational (‘System pressures and resources’). Deductive analysis using implementation theory identified key determinants of practice change, such as opportunities to consolidate new skills, the anticipated benefits of upskilling as a therapy team and the work anticipated by therapists to incorporate a new somatosensory rehabilitation approach.Conclusions Occupational therapists and physiotherapists hold valuable insights towards practice change in somatosensory rehabilitation from the ‘frontline’. Therapists experience barriers to change including a lack of knowledge and skills, lack of resources and organisational pressures. Facilitators for change were identified, including social support and therapists’ perceived legitimacy in using new somatosensory rehabilitation approaches. Results will inform the design of a tailored implementation strategy to increase the use of evidence-based somatosensory rehabilitation in Australia.Trial registration number Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12615000933550).

Objective Delayed prescribing is a promising strategy to manage patient requests for unnecessary tests and treatments. The purpose of this study was to explore general practitioner (GP) and patient views of three communication tools (Overdiagnosis Leaflet, Dialogue Sheet and ‘Wait-and-see’ Note) to support delayed prescribing of diagnostic imaging.Design Qualitative study.Setting Primary and emergency care in Sydney, Australia.Participants 16 GPs and 14 patients with recent episode of low back pain.Outcome Views on the tools to delay diagnostic imaging for low back pain. Data were collected using a combination of focus groups and individual interviews.Analysis Two researchers independently performed a thematic analysis, and the author team reviewed and refined the analysis.Results GP participants responded positively to the Overdiagnosis Leaflet. The Dialogue Sheet and ‘Wait-and-see’ Note raised several concerns about patient pushback, adding to time pressure and being overwhelmed with hard-to-find paper resources. GPs preferred to communicate verbally the reasons to delay an imaging test. For patients, the reactions to the tools were more positive. Patients valued written information and a signed agreement to delay the test. However, patients expressed that a strong desire for diagnostic imaging would likely over-ride any effect of written advice to delay the test. The term ‘false alarm’ to describe overdiagnosis was poorly understood by patients.Conclusions GPs and patients agreed that a leaflet about overdiagnosis could support a delayed prescribing approach to imaging for low back pain. The Dialogue Sheet and ‘Wait-and-see’ Note were acceptable to patients but not to GPs.

Objective Overuse of diagnostic imaging for patients with low back pain remains common. The underlying beliefs about diagnostic imaging that could drive overuse remain unclear. We synthesised qualitative research that has explored clinician, patient or general public beliefs about diagnostic imaging for low back pain.Design A qualitative evidence synthesis using a thematic analysis.Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED and PsycINFO from inception to 17 June 2019. Qualitative studies that interviewed clinicians, patients and/or general public exploring beliefs about diagnostic imaging for low back pain were included. Four review authors independently extracted data and organised these according to themes and subthemes. We used the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool to critically appraise included studies. To assess confidence in review findings, we used the GRADE-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research method.Results We included 69 qualitative studies with 1747 participants. Key findings included: Patients and clinicians believe diagnostic imaging is an important test to locate the source of low back pain (33 studies, high confidence); patients with chronic low back pain believe pathological findings on diagnostic imaging provide evidence that pain is real (12 studies, moderate confidence); and clinicians ordered diagnostic imaging to reduce the risk of a missed diagnosis that could lead to litigation, and to manage patients’ expectations (12 studies, moderate confidence).Conclusion Clinicians and patients can believe that diagnostic imaging is an important tool for locating the source of non-specific low back pain. Patients may underestimate the harms of unnecessary imaging tests. These beliefs could be important targets for intervention.PROSPERO registration number CRD42017076047.

Introduction Examining patient and public understanding of overtesting and overdiagnosis (OverTD) is vital for reducing the burden of OverTD. Studies from disparate contexts, disciplines and focusing on disparate healthcare issues have examined patient and public understanding of OverTD. A synthesis is needed to bring this literature together, examine common themes, strengthen conclusions and identify gaps. This will help steer further research, policy and practice to improve patient and public understanding of OverTD. The objective of this study is to synthesise qualitative research data about patient and public understanding of OverTD.Methods and analysis A thematic meta-synthesis will be used to synthesise primary qualitative research and qualitative components of primary mixed-methods research about patient and public understanding of OverTD. Studies published in English will be included. These will be identified using systematic searches from inception to March 2020 in the Scopus, CINAHL, PsycINFO and MEDLINE databases. Studies that satisfy eligibility criteria will be assessed for methodological quality using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist. Thematic meta-synthesis will comprise three stages: (1) line-by-line coding; (2) generation of descriptive themes and (3) generation of analytic themes. Confidence in the synthesis findings will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Confidence in Evidence (GRADE CERQual) approach. A summary of GRADE CERQual results will be presented alongside the key themes. Study eligibility screening, data extraction, analysis and the CASP and GRADE CERQual assessments will be undertaken independently by two review authors.Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval is not required for this secondary analysis of published data. The results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and may be presented in conference papers and elsewhere.PROSPERO registration number CRD42020156838

Objective To describe available evidence from systematic reviews of alternative healthcare delivery arrangements relevant to high-income countries to inform decisions about healthcare system improvement.Design Scoping review of systematic reviews.Data sources Systematic reviews of interventions indexed in Pretty Darn Quick-Evidence.Eligibility criteria All English language systematic reviews evaluating the effects of alternative delivery arrangements relevant to high-income countries, published between 1 January 2012 and 20 September 2017. Eligible reviews had to summarise evidence on at least one of the following outcomes: patient outcomes, quality of care, access and/or use of healthcare services, resource use, impacts on equity and/or social outcomes, healthcare provider outcomes or adverse effects.Data extraction and synthesis Journal, publication year, number and design of primary studies, populations/health conditions represented and types of outcomes were extracted.Results Of 829 retrieved records, 531 reviews fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Almost all (93%) reviews reported on patient outcomes, while only about one-third included resource use as an outcome of interest. Just over a third (n=189, 36%) of reviews focused on alternative information and communications technology interventions (including 162 reviews on telehealth). About one-quarter (n=122, 23%) of reviews focused on alternative care coordination interventions. 15% (n=80) of reviews examined interventions involving changes to who provides care and how the healthcare workforce is managed. Few reviews investigated the effects of interventions involving changes to how and when care is delivered (n=47, 9%) or interventions addressing a goal-focused question (n=38, 7%).Conclusion A substantial body of evidence about the effects of a wide range of delivery arrangements is available to inform health system improvements. The lack of economic evaluations in the majority of systematic reviews of delivery arrangements means that the value of many of these models is unknown. This scoping review identifies evidence gaps that would be usefully addressed by future research.

Introduction The over-prescription and overuse of opioid analgesics for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) is a growing issue. Synthesis of evidence about the barriers and enablers to reducing long-term opioid prescribing and use will enable the development of tailored interventions to address both problems.Objective To synthesise the barriers and enablers to monitoring the ongoing appropriateness of opioid treatment and deprescribing opioids for CNCP from the clinician, patient and general public point of view, and to map the findings to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF).Methods and analysis We will perform a qualitative evidence synthesis using the TDF. We will include qualitative research that has explored clinician, patient and the general public’s perceptions regarding barriers and enablers to monitoring and deprescribing opioids for CNCP. Studies will be identified via searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED and PsycINFO. Databases will be searched from inception to July 2019, and the studies must be published in English. Article selection and data extraction will be completed independently by two review authors. Methodological quality of included studies will be independently assessed by two review authors using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme quality assessment tool. We will conduct thematic synthesis and then map identified themes and sub-themes to TDF domains. Confidence in synthesis findings will be evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research tool.Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval is not required to conduct this review. We will publish the results in a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration number CRD42019140784

IntroductionThis cluster randomised trial evaluated an intervention to decrease x-ray referrals and increase giving advice to stay active for people with acute low back pain (LBP) in general practice.MethodsGeneral practices were randomised to either access to a guideline for acute LBP (control) or facilitated interactive workshops (intervention). We measured behavioural predictors (e.g. knowledge, attitudes and intentions) and fear avoidance beliefs. We were unable to recruit sufficient patients to measure our original primary outcomes so we introduced other outcomes measured at the general practitioner (GP) level: behavioural simulation (clinical decision about vignettes) and rates of x-ray and CT-scan (medical administrative data). All those not involved in the delivery of the intervention were blinded to allocation.Results47 practices (53 GPs) were randomised to the control and 45 practices (59 GPs) to the intervention. The number of GPs available for analysis at 12 months varied by outcome due to missing confounder information; a minimum of 38 GPs were available from the intervention group, and a minimum of 40 GPs from the control group. For the behavioural constructs, although effect estimates were small, the intervention group GPs had greater intention of practising consistent with the guideline for the clinical behaviour of x-ray referral. For behavioural simulation, intervention group GPs were more likely to adhere to guideline recommendations about x-ray (OR 1.76, 95%CI 1.01, 3.05) and more likely to give advice to stay active (OR 4.49, 95%CI 1.90 to 10.60). Imaging referral was not statistically significantly different between groups and the potential importance of effects was unclear; rate ratio 0.87 (95%CI 0.68, 1.10) for x-ray or CT-scan.ConclusionsThe intervention led to small changes in GP intention to practice in a manner that is consistent with an evidence-based guideline, but it did not result in statistically significant changes in actual behaviour.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN012606000098538.

INTRODUCTION: The development and publication of clinical practice guidelines for acute low-back pain has resulted in evidence-based recommendations that have the potential to improve the quality and safety of care for acute low-back pain. Development and dissemination of guidelines may not, however, be sufficient to produce improvements in clinical practice; further investment in active implementation of guideline recommendations may be required. Further research is required to quantify the trade-off between the additional upfront cost of active implementation of guideline recommendations for low-back pain and any resulting improvements in clinical practice. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside the IMPLEMENT trial from a health sector perspective to compare active implementation of guideline recommendations via the IMPLEMENT intervention (plus standard dissemination) against standard dissemination alone. RESULTS: The base-case analysis suggests that delivery of the IMPLEMENT intervention dominates standard dissemination (less costly and more effective), yielding savings of $135 per x-ray referral avoided (-$462.93/3.43). However, confidence intervals around point estimates for the primary outcome suggest that--irrespective of willingness to pay (WTP)--we cannot be at least 95% confident that the IMPLEMENT intervention differs in value from standard dissemination. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate that moving beyond development and dissemination to active implementation entails a significant additional upfront investment that may not be offset by health gains and/or reductions in health service utilization of sufficient magnitude to render active implementation cost-effective.

Abstract Background Early childhood obesity prevention interventions that aim to change parent/caregiver practices related to infant (milk) feeding, food provision and parent feeding, movement (including activity, sedentary behaviour) and/or sleep health (i.e. target parental behaviour domains) are diverse and heterogeneously reported. We aimed to 1) systematically characterise the target behaviours, delivery features, and Behaviour Change Techniques (BCTs) used in interventions in the international Transforming Obesity Prevention for CHILDren (TOPCHILD) Collaboration, and 2) explore similarities and differences in BCTs used in interventions by target behaviour domains. Methods Annual systematic searches were performed in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane (CENTRAL), CINAHL, PsycINFO, and two clinical trial registries, from inception to February 2023. Trialists from eligible randomised controlled trials of parent-focused, behavioural early obesity prevention interventions shared unpublished intervention materials. Standardised approaches were used to code target behaviours, delivery features and BCTs in both published and unpublished intervention materials. Validation meetings confirmed coding with trialists. Narrative syntheses were performed. Results Thirty-two trials reporting 37 active intervention arms were included. Interventions targeted a range of behaviours. The most frequent combination was targeting all parental behaviour domains (infant [milk] feeding, food provision and parent feeding, movement, sleep health; n[intervention arms] = 15/37). Delivery features varied considerably. Most interventions were delivered by a health professional (n = 26/36), included facilitator training (n = 31/36), and were interactive (n = 28/36). Overall, 49 of 93 unique BCTs were coded to at least one target behaviour domain. The most frequently coded BCTs were: Instruction on how to perform a behaviour (n[intervention arms, separated by domain] = 102), Behavioural practice and rehearsal (n = 85), Information about health consequences (n = 85), Social support (unspecified) (n = 84), and Credible source (n = 77). Similar BCTs were often used for each target behaviour domain. Conclusions Our study provides the most comprehensive description of the behaviour change content of complex interventions targeting early childhood obesity prevention available to date. Our analysis revealed that interventions targeted multiple behaviour domains, with significant variation in delivery features. Despite the diverse range of BCTs coded, five BCTs were consistently identified across domains, though certain BCTs were more prevalent in specific domains. These findings can be used to examine effectiveness of components and inform intervention development and evaluation in future trials. Trial registration PROSPERO registration no. CRD42020177408.

ABSTRACT Background Diagnostic tests carry significant risks, and communications are needed to help lay people consider these. The development of communications has been hindered by poor knowledge about how lay people understand and negotiate testing risks. We examined lay Australians' perceptions of diagnostic testing risks and how these risks are managed. Method We completed 12 semistructured online focus groups with 61 Australian adults (18+) between April and June 2022. Participants were divided into younger/older (> 50 years) and male/female groups. Using semistructured discussion and exploring two hypothetical scenarios, we examined attitudes to diagnostic tests, their risks and how test risks were managed. Themes were identified, subanalysed to identify age and gender differences and mapped to the COM‐B model of behaviour change. Results The six themes provided detailed accounts of how participants considered themselves able, empowered and assertive when negotiating testing risks and of complex ways in which relationships with health workers, personal experiences and structural factors influenced negotiating testing risks. COM‐B identified multiple opportunities for leveraging these lay beliefs in health promotion. It also identified barriers, including narrow concepts of testing risks, challenges during shared decision‐making and overestimation of personal influence on testing decisions. Significance Our findings matter because they are a novel, detailed account of testing risk beliefs, linked to a model for behaviour change. This will directly inform development of test risk/benefit communications, which are a research priority. Public Contribution The study design enabled participants to influence the discussion agenda, and they could comment on the analysis. Participants contributed insights about their needs, beliefs and experiences related to medical testing, and these will be used to shape future patient‐centred decision tools.

The burden of chronic diseases in Nepal is increasing due to demographic and epidemiological transitions; alongside the persistent impact of communicable, maternal, newborn, and child health diseases, this critical situation acts as the precursor to rising healthcare costs. Nepal struggles to sustain its healthcare system amidst political instability, pandemics, natural disasters, and slow economic growth, particularly when healthcare funding is mainly dependent on out-of-pocket payments. Nepal requires lower-cost alternative healthcare delivery arrangements to provide high-value care while relieving economic sustainability pressures. Alternative healthcare delivery arrangements have a broad potential scope; they can involve strategic changes in how care is delivered and by whom, or they can also involve the application of information and communication technologies, e.g., telemedicine. This paper highlights the specific challenges to healthcare system sustainability in Nepal and the potential for high-value, lower-cost alternative healthcare delivery models to improve system performance in the longer term.

Abstract Background Evidence-based guidelines for management of mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) in the emergency department (ED) are now widely available; however, clinical practice remains inconsistent with these guidelines. A targeted, theory-informed implementation intervention (Neurotrauma Evidence Translation (NET) intervention) was designed to increase the uptake of three clinical practice recommendations regarding the management of patients who present to Australian EDs with mild head injuries. The intervention involved local stakeholder meetings, identification and training of nursing and medical local opinion leaders, train-the-trainer workshops and standardised education materials and interactive workshops delivered by the opinion leaders to others within their EDs during a 3 month period. This paper reports on the effects of this intervention. Methods EDs (clusters) were allocated to receive either access to a clinical practice guideline (control) or the implementation intervention, using minimisation, a method that allocates clusters to groups using an algorithm to minimise differences in predefined factors between the groups. We measured clinical practice outcomes at the patient level using chart audit. The primary outcome was appropriate screening for post-traumatic amnesia (PTA) using a validated tool until a perfect score was achieved (indicating absence of acute cognitive impairment) before the patient was discharged home. Secondary outcomes included appropriate CT scanning and the provision of written patient information upon discharge. Patient health outcomes (anxiety, primary outcome: Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) were also assessed using follow-up telephone interviews. Outcomes were assessed by independent auditors and interviewers, blinded to group allocation. Results Fourteen EDs were allocated to the intervention and 17 to the control condition; 1943 patients were included in the chart audit. At 2 months follow-up, patients attending intervention EDs (n = 893) compared with control EDs (n = 1050) were more likely to have been appropriately assessed for PTA (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 20.1, 95%CI 6.8 to 59.3; adjusted absolute risk difference (ARD) 14%, 95%CI 8 to 19). The odds of compliance with recommendations for CT scanning and provision of written patient discharge information were small (OR 1.2, 95%CI 0.8 to 1.6; ARD 3.2, 95%CI − 3.7 to 10 and OR 1.2, 95%CI 0.8 to 1.8; ARD 3.1, 95%CI − 3.0 to 9.3 respectively). A total of 343 patients at ten interventions and 14 control sites participated in follow-up interviews at 4.3 to 10.7 months post-ED presentation. The intervention had a small effect on anxiety levels (adjusted mean difference − 0.52, 95%CI − 1.34 to 0.30; scale 0–21, with higher scores indicating greater anxiety). Conclusions Our intervention was effective in improving the uptake of the PTA recommendation; however, it did not appreciably increase the uptake of the other two practice recommendations. Improved screening for PTA may be clinically important as it leads to appropriate periods of observation prior to safe discharge. The estimated intervention effect on anxiety was of limited clinical significance. We were not able to compare characteristics of EDs who declined trial participation with those of participating sites, which may limit the generalizability of the results. Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12612001286831), date registered 12 December 2012.