Meta-Regression Analyses to Explain Statistical Heterogeneity in a Systematic Review of Strategies for Guideline Implementation in Primary Health Care

Abstract

This study is an in-depth-analysis to explain statistical heterogeneity in a systematic review of implementation strategies to improve guideline adherence of primary care physicians in the treatment of patients with cardiovascular diseases. The systematic review included randomized controlled trials from a systematic search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, conference proceedings and registers of ongoing studies. Implementation strategies were shown to be effective with substantial heterogeneity of treatment effects across all investigated strategies. Primary aim of this study was to explain different effects of eligible trials and to identify methodological and clinical effect modifiers. Random effects meta-regression models were used to simultaneously assess the influence of multimodal implementation strategies and effect modifiers on physician adherence. Effect modifiers included the staff responsible for implementation, level of prevention and definition pf the primary outcome, unit of randomization, duration of follow-up and risk of bias. Six clinical and methodological factors were investigated as potential effect modifiers of the efficacy of different implementation strategies on guideline adherence in primary care practices on the basis of information from 75 eligible trials. Five effect modifiers were able to explain a substantial amount of statistical heterogeneity. Physician adherence was improved by 62% (95% confidence interval (95% CI) 29 to 104%) or 29% (95% CI 5 to 60%) in trials where other non-medical professionals or nurses were included in the implementation process. Improvement of physician adherence was more successful in primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular diseases by around 30% (30%; 95% CI -2 to 71% and 31%; 95% CI 9 to 57%, respectively) compared to tertiary prevention. This study aimed to identify effect modifiers of implementation strategies on physician adherence. Especially the cooperation of different health professionals in primary care practices might increase efficacy and guideline implementation seems to be more difficult in tertiary prevention of cardiovascular diseases.

Evaluation of Statin Prescribing for Secondary Prevention in Primary Care Following New Guideline Recommendations

“…Previous studies have demonstrated this approach may be an effective method for improving use of evidence-based therapy. 18…”

Educational intervention on medication reviews aiming to reduce acute healthcare consumption in elderly patients with potentially inappropriate medicines—A pragmatic open‐label cluster‐randomized controlled trial in primary care

“…13,14,33 In particular, we stimulated interprofessional discussion and collaboration between nurses and GPs because physicians' adherence has been shown to increase by 29% if even nurses were involved in the implementation process. 34 Still, the rate of MRs was the same in the intervention and control group, which may be explained by financial incentives linked to the coding of MRs in all practices independently of whether they were part of the intervention or control group. Financial incentives are known to be a powerful tool to promote changes in professional behavior and may have overruled possible differences between the intervention and The difference-in-difference approach decomposes outcomes into a group effect (difference between intervention and control group), a period effect (difference between after and before the intervention, time trend), and an intervention effect (difference-in-differences) estimated as the period × group interaction.…”

“…Our intervention comprised several evidence‐based educational strategies . In particular, we stimulated interprofessional discussion and collaboration between nurses and GPs because physicians' adherence has been shown to increase by 29% if even nurses were involved in the implementation process . Still, the rate of MRs was the same in the intervention and control group, which may be explained by financial incentives linked to the coding of MRs in all practices independently of whether they were part of the intervention or control group.…”

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided celiac plexus neurolysis (EUS-CPN) technique and analgesic efficacy in patients with pancreatic cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

“…A meta-regression analysis investigated the association between each technique and overall treatment response, and estimated the relative efficacy of each technique [16]. The outcome variable was the probability of treatment response, the performed technique was the categorical moderator variable and the CI group was the reference category.…”