Taking healthcare interventions from trial to practice

Glasziou, Paul; Chalmers, Iain; Altman, Douglas G.; Bastian, Hilda; Boutron, Isabelle; Brice, Anne; Jamtvedt, Gro; Farmer, Andrew; Ghersi, Davina; Groves, Trish; Heneghan, Carl; Hill, Sophie; Lewin, Simon; Michie, Susan; Perera, Rafael; Pomeroy, Valerie M.; Tilson, Julie K.; Shepperd, Sasha; Williams, John W

doi:10.1136/bmj.c3852

Cited by 178 publications

(177 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

174

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Across 106 journals, only 14% mentioned intervention reporting, although most gave non-specific instructions such as "describe methods, including interventions"; 58% referred to the CONSORT statement; and whilst 74% of journals offered supplementary online options, only 4% mandated their use (Hoffmann et al, 2014a). Word/page restrictions in journals challenge authors' abilities to furnish adequate details on the interventions in the published report (Glasziou, Chalmers, Altman, Bastian, Boutron, Brice et al, 2010).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do we really know what they were testing? Incomplete reporting of interventions in randomised trials of upper limb therapies in unilateral cerebral palsy

Sakzewski

Reedman

Hoffmann

2016

Research in Developmental Disabilities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Incomplete reporting of components of interventions limits uptake of evidence into clinical practice. Aims:To evaluate the completeness of reporting of research and control interventions in randomised trials of upper limb therapies for children with unilateral cerebral palsy. Methods and procedures:Sixty randomized trials were included, encompassing 60 research and 68 control interventions. Using the 12-item Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist, two reviewers independently rated intervention and control descriptions.Outcomes and results: When using 50% of studies as the benchmark, five of the 12 TIDieR items for the research intervention, eight of the 12 items for the control intervention and 11 of 12 items for "usual care" interventions were inadequately reported. Procedures used to deliver the research intervention were adequately reported for 63% of studies. Materials were used in 94% of research interventions, yet only 27% provided details to access/replicate materials. Training materials for interventionists were used in 38% of trials, 10 (17%) had procedure manuals, yet only 3 reported details to access materials. The location where the research intervention was provided was detailed in 65% of studies. Reporting of all items was poorer for the control intervention. Conclusions:No study adequately reported all elements on the TIDieR checklist. Details crucial for replication of interventions and interpretation of results were missing. Authors, reviewers, and editors all have a responsibility to improve the quality of intervention reporting in published trials. The TIDieR guide is a potential solution, helping to structure accounts of interventions. What this study adds:This is the first study 3  This is the first study to evaluate the completeness of reporting of intervention components in complex cerebral palsy interventions  This is the first study to rate completeness of reporting of control interventions  This study provides information to increase awareness of editors, reviewers and authors of the importance of complete reporting of intervention components in cerebral palsy rehabilitation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do we really know what they were testing? Incomplete reporting of interventions in randomised trials of upper limb therapies in unilateral cerebral palsy

Sakzewski

Reedman

Hoffmann

2016

Research in Developmental Disabilities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Mixed findings for attendance and attrition were provided, with fidelity to the intervention protocol reported in only 50 % (n=6) of articles. In a recent review of 80 health interventions for the British Medical Journal, Glasziou et al [46] found that 50 % did not report sufficient information to enable the intervention to be effectively replicated. In addition, only 31 % reported on fidelity to the intervention protocol [46].…”

Section: Adoptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can physical activity interventions for adults with type 2 diabetes be translated into practice settings? A systematic review using the RE-AIM framework

Matthews

Kirk

MacMillan

et al. 2013

Behav. Med. Pract. Policy Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the strong evidence base for the efficacy of physical activity in the management of type 2 diabetes, a limited number of physical activity interventions have been translated and evaluated in everyday practice. This systematic review aimed to report the findings of studies in which an intervention, containing physical activity promotion as a component, has been delivered within routine diabetes care. A comprehensive search was conducted for articles reporting process data relating to components of the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and/or Maintenance) framework. Twelve studies met the selection criteria. Of the nine studies which measured physical activity as an outcome, eight reported an increase in physical activity levels, five of which were significant. Tailoring recruitment, resources and intervention delivery to the target population played a positive role, in addition to the use of external organisations and staff training. Many interventions were of short duration and lacked long-term follow-up data. Findings revealed limited and inconsistent reporting of useful process data.

show abstract

“…For instance, the importance of reporting on intervention implementation and intervention fidelity -the degree to which the intervention is delivered as planned -is frequently highlighted as an important issue in recent contributions to systematic review methodology (Armstrong and Waters 2007, Glasziou et al 2010, Tugwell et al 2010. Information about these factors can help explore issues beyond what works, including how and why something works or not, as well as help users anticipate and solve potential problems (Shadish et al 2002).…”

Section: Methodological Concernsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If reviews provide limited information beyond the average effect of an intervention, it is difficult for users to assess the applicability of findings, understand why interventions work or not, replicate successful interventions, or improve those that fail. The lack of systematic reporting of such information in systematic reviews can prevent the uptake and use of evidence or lead to evidence being used incorrectly (Glasziou et al 2010).…”

Section: Weaknesses In Informing Policy and Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Systematic reviews of effectiveness rarely engage with the program theory underlying the intervention (Gardner et al 2010), or provide detailed description of the interventions and how they were implemented (Roen et al 2006, Glasziou et al 2010, or the contexts in which they were implemented. Hence, it is often difficult to determine what was actually implemented and in which contexts.…”

Section: Weaknesses In Informing Policy and Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Systematic reviews: from ‘bare bones’ reviews to policy relevance

Snilstveit

2012

Journal of Development Effectiveness

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Systematic reviews: from 'bare bones' reviews to policy relevance Birte SnilstveitTo cite this article: Birte Snilstveit (2012) Systematic reviews: from 'bare bones' reviews to policy relevance, Journal of Development Effectiveness, 4:3, 388-408, DOI: 10.1080/19439342.2012 Theory-based systematic reviews, which summarise evidence on what works, when and why, strive for greater policy relevance. Reviews that answer these questions adopt a mixed methods approach and draw on a range of study types. Answering the 'what works' and 'what doesn't' questions means drawing on effectiveness studies, conducted to standards of high-quality impact evaluation. But in formulating answers to the 'when' and 'why' questions requires a broader range of evidence from both quantitative and qualitative research. Based on a review of the methodological literature in this field and the experience of 3ie's systematic reviews program, this article provides an outline of how a theory-based approach to systematic reviews, including appropriate quantitative and qualitative evidence, can be operationalised. We propose an approach based on three principles: (1) develop a program theory for the intervention; (2) adopt a mixed methods approach and include a broader range of evidence; and (3) maintain the rigour and transparency that characterise systematic reviews. The approach translates into two broad options. Effectiveness plus reviews focus on providing a detailed causal chain analysis by drawing on a program theory and additional data collection on context and intervention implementation. And effectiveness plus with a parallel review component, which is designed to answer specific research questions related to effectiveness, adopts separate inclusion criteria, reflecting the type of studies appropriate for answering those questions.

show abstract

Taking healthcare interventions from trial to practice

Cited by 178 publications

References 37 publications

Do we really know what they were testing? Incomplete reporting of interventions in randomised trials of upper limb therapies in unilateral cerebral palsy

Do we really know what they were testing? Incomplete reporting of interventions in randomised trials of upper limb therapies in unilateral cerebral palsy

Can physical activity interventions for adults with type 2 diabetes be translated into practice settings? A systematic review using the RE-AIM framework

Systematic reviews: from ‘bare bones’ reviews to policy relevance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About