Do implementation interventions improve evidence-based care in acute stroke settings? A Cochrane Review summary with commentary.

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY NeuroRehabilitation Pub Date : 2024-01-01 DOI:10.3233/NRE-246002
Claudio Cordani, Irene Battel
{"title":"Do implementation interventions improve evidence-based care in acute stroke settings? A Cochrane Review summary with commentary.","authors":"Claudio Cordani, Irene Battel","doi":"10.3233/NRE-246002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Evidence on acute stroke management is continuously growing. Stroke units are often associated with better access to high-level evidence-based practices, but even there, recommendations can be inconsistently delivered to patients with stroke. Implementation interventions are strategies designed to improve the application of evidence-based care.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To provide a commentary on the Cochrane Review by Lynch et al. on the effects of implementation interventions on adherence to evidence-based recommendations by health professionals working in acute stroke units.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search was performed in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and other databases. The search was also performed in grey literature databases, trial registries, systematic reviews and primary studies, as well as in the reference list of identified studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The review included seven cluster-randomized trials (with 42,489 participants). Studies compared the implementation of strategies composed of different parts (multifaceted) to no intervention, or a multifaceted strategy vs another intervention. These strategies were aimed at changing and improving the delivery of care in the hospital. It included health professional participants, such as nurses, physicians and allied health professionals. The authors concluded that there was uncertainty whether implementation strategies compared with no intervention have any effect on patients receiving evidence-based care during their stroke unit admission. Implementation interventions compared to no intervention probably have little or no effect on the risk of patients dying or being disabled or dependent, and probably do not change patients' hospital length of stay.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Due to the very low certainty of evidence, there is uncertainty whether a multifaceted implementation intervention, compared to no intervention, can improve adherence to evidence-based recommendations in acute stroke settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":19717,"journal":{"name":"NeuroRehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":"343-346"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NeuroRehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3233/NRE-246002","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Evidence on acute stroke management is continuously growing. Stroke units are often associated with better access to high-level evidence-based practices, but even there, recommendations can be inconsistently delivered to patients with stroke. Implementation interventions are strategies designed to improve the application of evidence-based care.

Objective: To provide a commentary on the Cochrane Review by Lynch et al. on the effects of implementation interventions on adherence to evidence-based recommendations by health professionals working in acute stroke units.

Methods: A systematic search was performed in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and other databases. The search was also performed in grey literature databases, trial registries, systematic reviews and primary studies, as well as in the reference list of identified studies.

Results: The review included seven cluster-randomized trials (with 42,489 participants). Studies compared the implementation of strategies composed of different parts (multifaceted) to no intervention, or a multifaceted strategy vs another intervention. These strategies were aimed at changing and improving the delivery of care in the hospital. It included health professional participants, such as nurses, physicians and allied health professionals. The authors concluded that there was uncertainty whether implementation strategies compared with no intervention have any effect on patients receiving evidence-based care during their stroke unit admission. Implementation interventions compared to no intervention probably have little or no effect on the risk of patients dying or being disabled or dependent, and probably do not change patients' hospital length of stay.

Conclusion: Due to the very low certainty of evidence, there is uncertainty whether a multifaceted implementation intervention, compared to no intervention, can improve adherence to evidence-based recommendations in acute stroke settings.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
实施干预能否改善急性卒中循证护理?带评论的 Cochrane 综述摘要。
背景:有关急性卒中管理的证据不断增加。卒中单元通常更容易获得高水平的循证实践,但即使在卒中单元,向卒中患者提供的建议也可能不一致。实施干预是旨在改善循证护理应用的策略:对 Lynch 等人关于实施干预对急性卒中单元医护人员遵循循证建议的影响的 Cochrane 综述进行评述:在 CENTRAL、MEDLINE、Embase 及其他数据库中进行了系统检索。还在灰色文献数据库、试验登记、系统综述和主要研究以及已确定研究的参考文献列表中进行了检索:综述包括七项分组随机试验(共有 42 489 名参与者)。研究比较了实施由不同部分组成的策略(多层面)与不实施干预措施,或实施多层面策略与其他干预措施。这些策略旨在改变和改善医院的护理服务。参与者包括护士、医生和专职医疗人员等医疗专业人员。作者总结道,实施策略与无干预相比,是否会对卒中患者在入院期间接受循证护理产生影响尚不确定。与不采取干预措施相比,实施干预措施对患者死亡、残疾或依赖性风险的影响可能很小或没有影响,也可能不会改变患者的住院时间:由于证据的确定性很低,因此还不确定与不干预相比,多方面的实施干预是否能提高急性卒中患者对循证建议的依从性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
NeuroRehabilitation
NeuroRehabilitation CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-REHABILITATION
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
178
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: NeuroRehabilitation, an international, interdisciplinary, peer-reviewed journal, publishes manuscripts focused on scientifically based, practical information relevant to all aspects of neurologic rehabilitation. We publish unsolicited papers detailing original work/research that covers the full life span and range of neurological disabilities including stroke, spinal cord injury, traumatic brain injury, neuromuscular disease and other neurological disorders. We also publish thematically organized issues that focus on specific clinical disorders, types of therapy and age groups. Proposals for thematic issues and suggestions for issue editors are welcomed.
期刊最新文献
Effect of chest expansion resistance exercise and respiratory muscle stretching on respiratory function and gait endurance in patients with stroke. Spontaneous eye blinking as a diagnostic and prognostic marker in disorders of consciousness: Protocol of an international multicentre longitudinal study. Evaluation of YouTube videos as a source of information on facial paralysis exercises. Research, education and practice of tele-neurorehabilitation in low and middle-income countries: A Scoping Review. The role of nutrition in mild traumatic brain injury rehabilitation for service members and veterans.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1