Use of theory to plan or evaluate guideline implementation among physicians: a scoping review

Abstract

BackgroundGuidelines support health care decision-making and high quality care and outcomes. However, their implementation is sub-optimal. Theory-informed, tailored implementation is associated with guideline use. Few guideline implementation studies published up to 1998 employed theory. This study aimed to describe if and how theory is now used to plan or evaluate guideline implementation among physicians.MethodsA scoping review was conducted. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library were searched from 2006 to April 2016. English language studies that planned or evaluated guideline implementation targeted to physicians based on explicitly named theory were eligible. Screening and data extraction were done in duplicate. Study characteristics and details about theory use were analyzed.ResultsA total of 1244 published reports were identified, 891 were unique, and 716 were excluded based on title and abstract. Among 175 full-text articles, 89 planned or evaluated guideline implementation targeted to physicians; 42 (47.2%) were based on theory and included. The number of studies using theory increased yearly and represented a wide array of countries, guideline topics and types of physicians. The Theory of Planned Behavior (38.1%) and the Theoretical Domains Framework (23.8%) were used most frequently. Many studies rationalized choice of theory (83.3%), most often by stating that the theory described implementation or its determinants, but most failed to explicitly link barriers with theoretical constructs. The majority of studies used theory to inform surveys or interviews that identified barriers of guideline use as a preliminary step in implementation planning (76.2%). All studies that evaluated interventions reported positive impact on reported physician or patient outcomes.ConclusionsWhile the use of theory to design or evaluate interventions appears to be increasing over time, this review found that one half of guideline implementation studies were based on theory and many of those provided scant details about how theory was used. This limits interpretation and replication of those interventions, and seems to result in multifaceted interventions, which may not be feasible outside of scientific investigation. Further research is needed to better understand how to employ theory in guideline implementation planning or evaluation.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-017-0557-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

E-learning: who uses it and what difference does it make?

“…However, there is a need to understand the influence of e-learning on behaviour and changes in practice of HCPs (Sinclair et al, 2016). From the evidence, this study shows that active education or active engagement can increase the chance of practice change (Lee, 2018), such as when learners can look at things, do things and engage with content. 'My Learning' is based on case studies and includes quizzes and active links to content in CareSearch.…”

“…This suggests that there is both motivation and intent to use the e-learning resource from users. Targeting specific behaviour, such as users specifying a time for a future action (3 months) rather than generalising (I will visit CareSearch again) is an indication of potential action (Webb and Sheeran, 2016), and more likely to increase behaviour change (Lee, 2018). It suggests that the user of the e-learning module has benefited from the experience and that change in their practice is likely to follow, with 92% of our learners indicating that the information presented would be used in their practice.…”

Criteria for selecting implementation science theories and frameworks: results from an international survey

“…Given their potential benefits, the underuse, superficial use, and misuse of theories represent a substantial scientific challenge for implementation science [ 4 – 8 ]. In one review, Tinkle et al [ 4 ] highlighted pervasive underuse of theory (i.e., not using a theory at all); most of the large National Institutes of Health-funded projects that they reviewed did not use a theory.…”

Engaging with theory: from theoretically informed to theoretically informative improvement research

“…Although the use of theory in improvement and implementation research appears to be increasing over time,8 the emphasis largely remains on adopting a theoretically informed approach, that is, applying theory to design an intervention or to systematise and explain evaluation findings. Despite the recognised need to ‘test’ theories by scrutinising their assumptions in the light of empirical findings,9 improvement researchers are often inclined to treat existing theoretical knowledge as received wisdom which is rarely critiqued and hardly ever moved forward.…”