PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-15 (15)
 

Clipboard (0)
None

Select a Filter Below

Journals
more »
Year of Publication
1.  Dedicated Spine Trauma Clinical Quality Registries: A Systematic Review 
Global Spine Journal  2013;3(4):265-272.
Study Design Systematic review.
Objective We assessed the current state of spine registries by collecting spine trauma data and assessing their compliance to defined registry standards of being clinical quality. We ascertained if these registries collected spinal cord injury data alone or with spine column trauma data.
Methods A systematic review was performed using MEDLINE and Embase databases for articles describing dedicated spinal cord and spine column databases published between January 1990 and April 2011. Correspondence with these registries was performed via e-mail or post. When no correspondence was possible, the registries were analyzed with best information available.
Results Three hundred eight full-text articles were reviewed. Of 41 registries identified, 20 registries fulfilled the criteria of being clinical quality. The main reason for failure to attain clinical quality designation was due to the unavailability of patient outcomes. Eight registries collected both spine column and spinal cord injury data with 33 collecting only traumatic spinal cord injury data.
Conclusion There is currently a paucity of clinical quality spine trauma registries. Clinical quality registries are important tools for demonstrating trends and outcomes, monitoring care quality, and resolving controversies in the management of spine trauma. An international spine trauma data set (containing both spinal cord and spine column injury data) and standardized approach to recording and analysis are needed to allow international multicenter collaboration and benchmarking.
doi:10.1055/s-0033-1350052
PMCID: PMC3854593  PMID: 24436881
clinical quality; registry; database; spine trauma; benchmarking
2.  Title and Abstract Screening and Evaluation in Systematic Reviews (TASER): a pilot randomised controlled trial of title and abstract screening by medical students 
Systematic Reviews  2014;3:121.
Background
The production of high quality systematic reviews requires rigorous methods that are time-consuming and resource intensive. Citation screening is a key step in the systematic review process. An opportunity to improve the efficiency of systematic review production involves the use of non-expert groups and new technologies for citation screening. We performed a pilot study of citation screening by medical students using four screening methods and compared students’ performance to experienced review authors.
Methods
The aims of this pilot randomised controlled trial were to provide preliminary data on the accuracy of title and abstract screening by medical students, and on the effect of screening modality on screening accuracy and efficiency. Medical students were randomly allocated to title and abstract screening using one of the four modalities and required to screen 650 citations from a single systematic review update. The four screening modalities were a reference management software program (EndNote), Paper, a web-based systematic review workflow platform (ReGroup) and a mobile screening application (Screen2Go). Screening sensitivity and specificity were analysed in a complete case analysis using a chi-squared test and Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test according to screening modality and compared to a final set of included citations selected by expert review authors.
Results
Sensitivity of medical students’ screening decisions ranged from 46.7% to 66.7%, with students using the web-based platform performing significantly better than the paper-based group. Specificity ranged from 93.2% to 97.4% with the lowest specificity seen with the web-based platform. There was no significant difference in performance between the other three modalities.
Conclusions
Medical students are a feasible population to engage in citation screening. Future studies should investigate the effect of incentive systems, training and support and analytical methods on screening performance.
Systematic review registration
Cochrane Database CD001048
doi:10.1186/2046-4053-3-121
PMCID: PMC4217707  PMID: 25335439
Systematic review; Citation screening; Title and abstract screening; Medical students; Methodology; Technology; Randomised controlled trial; Clinical practice guideline
3.  Organising health care services for people with an acquired brain injury: an overview of systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials 
Background
Acquired brain injury (ABI) is the leading cause of disability worldwide yet there is little information regarding the most effective way to organise ABI health care services. The aim of this review was to identify the most up-to-date high quality evidence to answer specific questions regarding the organisation of health care services for people with an ABI.
Methods
We conducted a systematic review of English papers using MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library. We included the most recently published high quality systematic reviews and any randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials, controlled before after studies or interrupted time series studies published subsequent to the systematic review. We searched for papers that evaluated pre-defined organisational interventions for adults with an ABI. Organisational interventions of interest included fee-for-service care, integrated care, integrated care pathways, continuity of care, consumer engagement in governance and quality monitoring interventions. Data extraction and appraisal of included reviews and studies was completed independently by two reviewers.
Results
A total of five systematic reviews and 21 studies were included in the review; eight of the papers (31%) included people with a traumatic brain injury (TBI) or ABI and the remaining papers (69%) included only participants with a diagnosis of stroke. We found evidence supporting the use of integrated care to improve functional outcome and reduce length of stay and evidence supporting early supported discharge teams for reducing morbidity and mortality and reducing length of stay for stroke survivors. There was little evidence to support case management or the use of integrated care pathways for people with ABI. We found evidence that a quality monitoring intervention can lead to improvements in process outcomes in acute and rehabilitation settings. We were unable to find any studies meeting our inclusion criteria regarding fee-for-service care or engaging consumers in the governance of the health care organisation.
Conclusions
The review found evidence to support integrated care, early supported discharge and quality monitoring interventions however, this evidence was based on studies conducted with people following stroke and may not be appropriate for all people with an ABI.
Electronic supplementary material
The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1472-6963-14-397) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
doi:10.1186/1472-6963-14-397
PMCID: PMC4263199  PMID: 25228157
Brain injuries; Craniocerebral trauma; Stroke; Systematic review; Rehabilitation; Case management; Delivery of health care; Quality assurance (Health Care)
4.  Implementing evidence-based recommended practices for the management of patients with mild traumatic brain injuries in Australian emergency care departments: study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial 
Trials  2014;15:281.
Background
Mild head injuries commonly present to emergency departments. The challenges facing clinicians in emergency departments include identifying which patients have traumatic brain injury, and which patients can safely be sent home. Traumatic brain injuries may exist with subtle symptoms or signs, but can still lead to adverse outcomes. Despite the existence of several high quality clinical practice guidelines, internationally and in Australia, research shows inconsistent implementation of these recommendations. The aim of this trial is to test the effectiveness of a targeted, theory- and evidence-informed implementation intervention to increase the uptake of three key clinical recommendations regarding the emergency department management of adult patients (18 years of age or older) who present following mild head injuries (concussion), compared with passive dissemination of these recommendations. The primary objective is to establish whether the intervention is effective in increasing the percentage of patients for which appropriate post-traumatic amnesia screening is performed.
Methods/design
The design of this study is a cluster randomised trial. We aim to include 34 Australian 24-hour emergency departments, which will be randomised to an intervention or control group. Control group departments will receive a copy of the most recent Australian evidence-based clinical practice guideline on the acute management of patients with mild head injuries. The intervention group will receive an implementation intervention based on an analysis of influencing factors, which include local stakeholder meetings, identification of nursing and medical opinion leaders in each site, a train-the-trainer day and standardised education and interactive workshops delivered by the opinion leaders during a 3 month period of time. Clinical practice outcomes will be collected retrospectively from medical records by independent chart auditors over the 2 month period following intervention delivery (patient level outcomes). In consenting hospitals, eligible patients will be recruited for a follow-up telephone interview conducted by trained researchers. A cost-effectiveness analysis and process evaluation using mixed-methods will be conducted. Sample size calculations are based on including 30 patients on average per department. Outcome assessors will be blinded to group allocation.
Trial registration
Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12612001286831 (date registered 12 December 2012).
doi:10.1186/1745-6215-15-281
PMCID: PMC4107995  PMID: 25012235
Mild traumatic brain injury; Cluster trial; Emergency department
5.  Living Systematic Reviews: An Emerging Opportunity to Narrow the Evidence-Practice Gap 
PLoS Medicine  2014;11(2):e1001603.
Julian Elliott and colleagues discuss how the current inability to keep systematic reviews up-to-date hampers the translation of knowledge into action. They propose living systematic reviews as a contribution to evidence synthesis to enhance the accuracy and utility of health evidence.
doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001603
PMCID: PMC3928029  PMID: 24558353
6.  Understanding practice: the factors that influence management of mild traumatic brain injury in the emergency department-a qualitative study using the Theoretical Domains Framework 
Background
Mild traumatic brain injury is a frequent cause of presentation to emergency departments. Despite the availability of clinical practice guidelines in this area, there is variation in practice. One of the aims of the Neurotrauma Evidence Translation program is to develop and evaluate a targeted, theory- and evidence-informed intervention to improve the management of mild traumatic brain injury in Australian emergency departments. This study is the first step in the intervention development process and uses the Theoretical Domains Framework to explore the factors perceived to influence the uptake of four key evidence-based recommended practices for managing mild traumatic brain injury.
Methods
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with emergency staff in the Australian state of Victoria. The interview guide was developed using the Theoretical Domains Framework to explore current practice and to identify the factors perceived to influence practice. Two researchers coded the interview transcripts using thematic content analysis.
Results
A total of 42 participants (9 Directors, 20 doctors and 13 nurses) were interviewed over a seven-month period. The results suggested that (i) the prospective assessment of post-traumatic amnesia was influenced by: knowledge; beliefs about consequences; environmental context and resources; skills; social/professional role and identity; and beliefs about capabilities; (ii) the use of guideline-developed criteria or decision rules to inform the appropriate use of a CT scan was influenced by: knowledge; beliefs about consequences; environmental context and resources; memory, attention and decision processes; beliefs about capabilities; social influences; skills and behavioral regulation; (iii) providing verbal and written patient information on discharge was influenced by: beliefs about consequences; environmental context and resources; memory, attention and decision processes; social/professional role and identity; and knowledge; (iv) the practice of providing brief, routine follow-up on discharge was influenced by: environmental context and resources; social/professional role and identity; knowledge; beliefs about consequences; and motivation and goals.
Conclusions
Using the Theoretical Domains Framework, factors thought to influence the management of mild traumatic brain injury in the emergency department were identified. These factors present theoretically based targets for a future intervention.
doi:10.1186/1748-5908-9-8
PMCID: PMC3895840  PMID: 24418161
Emergency department management; Mild traumatic brain injury; Theoretical Domains Framework; Semi-structured interviews
7.  Legal Disputes over Duties to Disclose Treatment Risks to Patients: A Review of Negligence Claims and Complaints in Australia 
PLoS Medicine  2012;9(8):e1001283.
David Studdert and colleagues identified disputes over informed consent among malpractice claims and serious health care complaints in Australia and provide an analysis of disagreements between patients and doctors over whether particular clinical risks should have been disclosed before treatment.
doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001283
PMCID: PMC3413715  PMID: 22879818
8.  Improving the care of people with traumatic brain injury through the Neurotrauma Evidence Translation (NET) program: protocol for a program of research 
The Neurotrauma Evidence Translation (NET) program was funded in 2009 to increase the uptake of research evidence in the clinical care of patients who have sustained traumatic brain injury. This paper reports the rationale and plan for this five-year knowledge translation research program. The overarching aims of the program are threefold: to improve outcomes for people with traumatic brain injury; to create a network of neurotrauma clinicians and researchers with expertise in knowledge translation and evidence-based practice; and to contribute knowledge to the field of knowledge translation research. The program comprises a series of interlinked projects spanning varying clinical environments and disciplines relevant to neurotrauma, anchored within four themes representing core knowledge translation activities: reviewing research evidence; understanding practice; developing and testing interventions for practice change; and building capacity for knowledge translation in neurotrauma. The program uses a range of different methods and study designs, including: an evidence fellowship program; conduct of and training in systematic reviews; mixed method study designs to describe and understand factors that influence current practices (e.g., semi-structured interviews and surveys); theory-based methods to develop targeted interventions aiming to change practice; a cluster randomised trial to test the effectiveness of a targeted theory-informed intervention; stakeholder involvement activities; and knowledge translation events such as consensus conferences.
doi:10.1186/1748-5908-7-74
PMCID: PMC3543324  PMID: 22866892
Knowledge translation research; Study protocol; Neurotrauma; Traumatic brain injury
9.  The Global Evidence Mapping Initiative: Scoping research in broad topic areas 
Background
Evidence mapping describes the quantity, design and characteristics of research in broad topic areas, in contrast to systematic reviews, which usually address narrowly-focused research questions. The breadth of evidence mapping helps to identify evidence gaps, and may guide future research efforts. The Global Evidence Mapping (GEM) Initiative was established in 2007 to create evidence maps providing an overview of existing research in Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and Spinal Cord Injury (SCI).
Methods
The GEM evidence mapping method involved three core tasks:
1. Setting the boundaries and context of the map: Definitions for the fields of TBI and SCI were clarified, the prehospital, acute inhospital and rehabilitation phases of care were delineated and relevant stakeholders (patients, carers, clinicians, researchers and policymakers) who could contribute to the mapping were identified. Researchable clinical questions were developed through consultation with key stakeholders and a broad literature search.
2. Searching for and selection of relevant studies: Evidence search and selection involved development of specific search strategies, development of inclusion and exclusion criteria, searching of relevant databases and independent screening and selection by two researchers.
3. Reporting on yield and study characteristics: Data extraction was performed at two levels - 'interventions and study design' and 'detailed study characteristics'. The evidence map and commentary reflected the depth of data extraction.
Results
One hundred and twenty-nine researchable clinical questions in TBI and SCI were identified. These questions were then prioritised into high (n = 60) and low (n = 69) importance by the stakeholders involved in question development. Since 2007, 58 263 abstracts have been screened, 3 731 full text articles have been reviewed and 1 644 relevant neurotrauma publications have been mapped, covering fifty-three high priority questions.
Conclusions
GEM Initiative evidence maps have a broad range of potential end-users including funding agencies, researchers and clinicians. Evidence mapping is at least as resource-intensive as systematic reviewing. The GEM Initiative has made advancements in evidence mapping, most notably in the area of question development and prioritisation. Evidence mapping complements other review methods for describing existing research, informing future research efforts, and addressing evidence gaps.
doi:10.1186/1471-2288-11-92
PMCID: PMC3141802  PMID: 21682870
10.  Effects of an evidence service on health-system policy makers' use of research evidence: A protocol for a randomised controlled trial 
Background
Health-system policy makers need timely access to synthesised research evidence to inform the policy-making process. No efforts to address this need have been evaluated using an experimental quantitative design. We developed an evidence service that draws inputs from Health Systems Evidence, which is a database of policy-relevant systematic reviews. The reviews have been (a) categorised by topic and type of review; (b) coded by the last year searches for studies were conducted and by the countries in which included studies were conducted; (c) rated for quality; and (d) linked to available user-friendly summaries, scientific abstracts, and full-text reports. Our goal is to evaluate whether a "full-serve" evidence service increases the use of synthesized research evidence by policy analysts and advisors in the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC) as compared to a "self-serve" evidence service.
Methods/design
We will conduct a two-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT), along with a follow-up qualitative process study in order to explore the findings in greater depth. For the RCT, all policy analysts and policy advisors (n = 168) in a single division of the MOHLTC will be invited to participate. Using a stratified randomized design, participants will be randomized to receive either the "full-serve" evidence service (database access, monthly e-mail alerts, and full-text article availability) or the "self-serve" evidence service (database access only). The trial duration will be ten months (two-month baseline period, six-month intervention period, and two month cross-over period). The primary outcome will be the mean number of site visits/month/user between baseline and the end of the intervention period. The secondary outcome will be participants' intention to use research evidence. For the qualitative study, 15 participants from each trial arm (n = 30) will be purposively sampled. One-on-one semi-structured interviews will be conducted by telephone on their views about and their experiences with the evidence service they received, how helpful it was in their work, why it was helpful (or not helpful), what aspects were most and least helpful and why, and recommendations for next steps.
Discussion
To our knowledge, this will be the first RCT to evaluate the effects of an evidence service specifically designed to support health-system policy makers in finding and using research evidence.
Trial registration
ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01307228
doi:10.1186/1748-5908-6-51
PMCID: PMC3123565  PMID: 21619621
12.  SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 9: Assessing the applicability of the findings of a systematic review 
This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers.
Differences between health systems may often result in a policy or programme option that is used in one setting not being feasible or acceptable in another. Or these differences may result in an option not working in the same way in another setting, or even achieving different impacts in another setting. A key challenge that policymakers and those supporting them must face is therefore the need to understand whether research evidence about an option can be applied to their setting. Systematic reviews make this task easier by summarising the evidence from studies conducted in a variety of different settings. Many systematic reviews, however, do not provide adequate descriptions of the features of the actual settings in which the original studies were conducted. In this article, we suggest questions to guide those assessing the applicability of the findings of a systematic review to a specific setting. These are: 1. Were the studies included in a systematic review conducted in the same setting or were the findings consistent across settings or time periods? 2. Are there important differences in on-the-ground realities and constraints that might substantially alter the feasibility and acceptability of an option? 3. Are there important differences in health system arrangements that may mean an option could not work in the same way? 4. Are there important differences in the baseline conditions that might yield different absolute effects even if the relative effectiveness was the same? 5. What insights can be drawn about options, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation? Even if there are reasonable grounds for concluding that the impacts of an option might differ in a specific setting, insights can almost always be drawn from a systematic review about possible options, as well as approaches to the implementation of options and to monitoring and evaluation.
doi:10.1186/1478-4505-7-S1-S9
PMCID: PMC3271836  PMID: 20018116
13.  Prevalence of Basic Information Technology Use by U.S. Physicians 
Journal of General Internal Medicine  2006;21(11):1150-1155.
BACKGROUND
Information technology (IT) has been advocated as an important means to improve the practice of clinical medicine.
OBJECTIVES
To determine current prevalence of non-electronic health record (EHR) IT use by a national sample of U.S. physicians, and to identify associated physician, practice, and patient panel characteristics.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
Survey conducted in early 2004 of 1,662 U.S. physicians engaged in direct patient care selected from 3 primary care specialties (family practice, internal medicine, pediatrics) and 3 nonprimary care specialties (anesthesiology, general surgery, cardiology).
MEASUREMENTS
Self-reported frequency of e-mail communication with patients or other clinicians, online access to continuing medical education or professional journals, and use of any computerized decision support (CDS) during clinical care. Survey results were weighted by specialty and linked via practice zip codes to measures of area income and urbanization.
RESULTS
Response rate was 52.5%. Respondents spent 49 (±19) (mean [±standard deviation]) hours per week in direct patient care and graduated from medical school 23 (±11) years earlier. “Frequent” use was highest for CDS (40.8%) and online professional journal access (39.0%), and lowest for e-mail communication with patients (3.4%). Ten percent of physicians never used any of the 5 IT tools. In separate logistic regression analyses predicting usage of each of the 5 IT tools, the strongest associations with IT use were primary care practice (adjusted odds ratios [aORs] ranging from 1.34 to 2.26) and academic practice setting (aORs 2.17 to 5.41). Years since medical school graduation (aOR 0.85 to 0.87 for every 5 years after graduation) and solo/2-person practice setting (aORs 0.21 to 0.55) were negatively associated with IT use. Practice location and patient panel characteristics were not independently associated with IT use.
CONCLUSIONS
In early 2004, the majority of physicians did not regularly use basic, inexpensive, and widely available IT tools in clinical practice. Efforts to increase the use of IT in medicine should focus on practice-level barriers to adoption.
doi:10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00571.x
PMCID: PMC1831662  PMID: 16879417
information technology; physician practice patterns; primary care; academic medicine
14.  Working Within and Beyond the Cochrane Collaboration to Make Systematic Reviews More Useful to Healthcare Managers and Policy Makers 
Healthcare Policy  2006;1(2):21-33.
Participants in the Cochrane Collaboration conduct and periodically update systematic reviews that address the question, “What works?” for healthcare interventions. The Cochrane Library makes available quality-appraised systematic reviews that address this question. No coordinated effort has been undertaken to conduct and periodically update systematic reviews that address the other types of questions asked by healthcare managers and policy makers, to adapt existing reviews to highlight decision-relevant information (including the factors that may affect assessments of a review’s local applicability) or to facilitate their retrieval through a “one-stop shopping” portal. Researchers interested in evaluating new methodological developments, health services and policy researchers interested in conducting and adapting systematic reviews, and research funders all have a role to play in making systematic reviews more useful for healthcare managers and policy makers.
PMCID: PMC2585325  PMID: 19305650
15.  The Surgical Nosology In Primary-care Settings (SNIPS): a simple bridging classification for the interface between primary and specialist care 
Background
The interface between primary care and specialist medical services is an important domain for health services research and policy. Of particular concern is optimising specialist services and the organisation of the specialist workforce to meet the needs and demands for specialist care, particularly those generated by referral from primary care. However, differences in the disease classification and reporting of the work of primary and specialist surgical sectors hamper such research. This paper describes the development of a bridging classification for use in the study of potential surgical problems in primary care settings, and for classifying referrals to surgical specialties.
Methods
A three stage process was undertaken, which involved: (1) defining the categories of surgical disorders from a specialist perspective that were relevant to the specialist-primary care interface; (2) classifying the 'terms' in the International Classification of Primary Care Version 2-Plus (ICPC-2 Plus) to the surgical categories; and (3) using referral data from 303,000 patient encounters in the BEACH study of general practice activity in Australia to define a core set of surgical conditions. Inclusion of terms was based on the probability of specialist referral of patients with such problems, and specialists' perception that they constitute part of normal surgical practice.
Results
A four-level hierarchy was developed, containing 8, 27 and 79 categories in the first, second and third levels, respectively. These categories classified 2050 ICPC-2 Plus terms that constituted the fourth level, and which covered the spectrum of problems that were managed in primary care and referred to surgical specialists.
Conclusion
Our method of classifying terms from a primary care classification system to categories delineated by specialists should be applicable to research addressing the interface between primary and specialist care. By describing the process and putting the bridging classification system in the public domain, we invite comment and application in other settings where similar problems might be faced.
doi:10.1186/1472-6963-4-8
PMCID: PMC434523  PMID: 15142280

Results 1-15 (15)