Browsing by Author "Moore, Julia E"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Enhancing the uptake of systematic reviews of effects: what is the best format for health care managers and policy-makers? A mixed-methods study
    (2018-06-22) Marquez, Christine; Johnson, Alekhya M; Jassemi, Sabrina; Park, Jamie; Moore, Julia E; Blaine, Caroline; Bourdon, Gertrude; Chignell, Mark; Ellen, Moriah E; Fortin, Jacques; Graham, Ian D; Hayes, Anne; Hamid, Jemila; Hemmelgarn, Brenda; Hillmer, Michael; Holmes, Bev; Holroyd-Leduc, Jayna; Hubert, Linda; Hutton, Brian; Kastner, Monika; Lavis, John N; Michell, Karen; Moher, David; Ouimet, Mathieu; Perrier, Laure; Proctor, Andrea; Noseworthy, Thomas; Schuckel, Victoria; Stayberg, Sharlene; Tonelli, Marcello; Tricco, Andrea C; Straus, Sharon E
    Abstract Background Systematic reviews are infrequently used by health care managers (HCMs) and policy-makers (PMs) in decision-making. HCMs and PMs co-developed and tested novel systematic review of effects formats to increase their use. Methods A three-phased approach was used to evaluate the determinants to uptake of systematic reviews of effects and the usability of an innovative and a traditional systematic review of effects format. In phase 1, survey and interviews were conducted with HCMs and PMs in four Canadian provinces to determine perceptions of a traditional systematic review format. In phase 2, systematic review format prototypes were created by HCMs and PMs via Conceptboard©. In phase 3, prototypes underwent usability testing by HCMs and PMs. Results Two hundred two participants (80 HCMs, 122 PMs) completed the phase 1 survey. Respondents reported that inadequate format (Mdn = 4; IQR = 4; range = 1–7) and content (Mdn = 4; IQR = 3; range = 1–7) influenced their use of systematic reviews. Most respondents (76%; n = 136/180) reported they would be more likely to use systematic reviews if the format was modified. Findings from 11 interviews (5 HCMs, 6 PMs) revealed that participants preferred systematic reviews of effects that were easy to access and read and provided more information on intervention effectiveness and less information on review methodology. The mean System Usability Scale (SUS) score was 55.7 (standard deviation [SD] 17.2) for the traditional format; a SUS score < 68 is below average usability. In phase 2, 14 HCMs and 20 PMs co-created prototypes, one for HCMs and one for PMs. HCMs preferred a traditional information order (i.e., methods, study flow diagram, forest plots) whereas PMs preferred an alternative order (i.e., background and key messages on one page; methods and limitations on another). In phase 3, the prototypes underwent usability testing with 5 HCMs and 7 PMs, 11 out of 12 participants co-created the prototypes (mean SUS score 86 [SD 9.3]). Conclusions HCMs and PMs co-created prototypes for systematic review of effects formats based on their needs. The prototypes will be compared to a traditional format in a randomized trial.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Scaling-up implementation in community hospitals: a multisite interrupted time series design of the Mobilization of Vulnerable Elders (MOVE) program in Alberta
    (2019-10-25) Holroyd-Leduc, Jayna; Harris, Charmalee; Hamid, Jemila S; Ewusie, Joycelyne E; Quirk, Jacquelyn; Osiowy, Karen; Moore, Julia E; Khan, Sobia; Liu, Barbara; Straus, Sharon E
    Abstract Background As the population ages, older hospitalized patients are at increased risk for hospital-acquired morbidity. The Mobilization of Vulnerable Elders (MOVE) program is an evidence-informed early mobilization intervention that was previously evaluated in Ontario, Canada. The program was effective at improving mobilization rates and decreasing length of stay in academic hospitals. The aim of this study was to scale-up the program and conduct a replication study evaluating the impact of the evidence-informed mobilization intervention on various units in community hospitals within a different Canadian province. Methods The MOVE program was tailored to the local context at four community hospitals in Alberta, Canada. The study population was patients aged 65 years and older who were admitted to medicine, surgery, rehabilitation and intensive care units between July 2015 and July 2016. The primary outcome was patient mobilization measured by conducting visual audits twice a week, three times a day. The secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay obtained from hospital administrative data, and perceptions of the intervention assessed through a qualitative assessment. Using an interrupted time series design, the intervention was evaluated over three time periods (pre-intervention, during, and post-intervention). Results A total of 3601 patients [mean age 80.1 years (SD = 8.4 years)] were included in the overall analysis. There was a significant increase in mobilization at the end of the intervention period compared to pre-intervention, with 6% more patients out of bed (95% confidence interval (CI) 1, 11; p-value = 0.0173). A decreasing trend in median length of stay was observed, where patients on average stayed an estimated 3.59 fewer days (95%CI -15.06, 7.88) during the intervention compared to pre-intervention period. Conclusions MOVE is a low-cost, effective and adaptable intervention that improves mobilization in older hospitalized patients. This intervention has been replicated and scaled up across various units and hospital settings.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Sustaining knowledge translation interventions for chronic disease management in older adults: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis
    (2018-09-15) Tricco, Andrea C; Moore, Julia E; Beben, Nicole; Brownson, Ross C; Chambers, David A; Dolovich, Lisa R; Edwards, Annemarie; Fairclough, Lee; Glasziou, Paul P; Graham, Ian D; Hemmelgarn, Brenda R; Holmes, Bev; Isaranuwatchai, Wanrudee; Lachance, Chantelle C; Legare, France; McGowan, Jessie; Majumdar, Sumit R; Presseau, Justin; Squires, Janet E; Stelfox, Henry T; Strifler, Lisa; Thompson, Kristine; Van der Weijden, Trudy; Veroniki, Areti A; Straus, Sharon E
    Abstract Background Failure to sustain knowledge translation (KT) interventions impacts patients and health systems, diminishing confidence in future implementation. Sustaining KT interventions used to implement chronic disease management (CDM) interventions is of critical importance given the proportion of older adults with chronic diseases and their need for ongoing care. Our objectives are to (1) complete a systematic review and network meta-analysis of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of sustainability of KT interventions that target CDM for end-users including older patients, clinicians, public health officials, health services managers and policy-makers on health care outcomes beyond 1 year after implementation or the termination of initial project funding and (2) use the results of this review to complete an economic analysis of the interventions identified to be effective. Methods For objective 1, comprehensive searches of relevant electronic databases (e.g. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), websites of health care provider organisations and funding agencies will be conducted. We will include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining the impact of a KT intervention targeting CDM in adults aged 65 years and older. To examine cost, economic studies (e.g. cost, cost-effectiveness analyses) will be included. Our primary outcome will be the sustainability of the delivery of the KT intervention beyond 1 year after implementation or termination of study funding. Secondary outcomes will include behaviour changes at the level of the patient (e.g. symptom management) and clinician (e.g. physician test ordering) and health system (e.g. cost, hospital admissions). Article screening, data abstraction and risk of bias assessment will be completed independently by two reviewers. Using established methods, if the assumption of transitivity is valid and the evidence forms a connected network, Bayesian random-effects pairwise and network meta-analysis will be conducted. For objective 2, we will build a decision analytic model comparing effective interventions to estimate an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Discussion Our results will inform knowledge users (e.g. patients, clinicians, policy-makers) regarding the sustainability of KT interventions for CDM. Dissemination plan of our results will be tailored to end-users and include passive (e.g. publications, website posting) and interactive (e.g. knowledge exchange events with stakeholders) strategies. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42018084810