Effects of implementation strategies on nursing practice and patient outcomes: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 8.8 1区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Implementation Science Pub Date : 2024-09-30 DOI:10.1186/s13012-024-01398-0
Guillaume Fontaine, Billy Vinette, Charlene Weight, Marc-André Maheu-Cadotte, Andréane Lavallée, Marie-France Deschênes, Alexandra Lapierre, Sonia A Castiglione, Gabrielle Chicoine, Geneviève Rouleau, Nikolas Argiropoulos, Kristin Konnyu, Meagan Mooney, Christine E Cassidy, Tanya Mailhot, Patrick Lavoie, Catherine Pépin, Sylvie Cossette, Marie-Pierre Gagnon, Sonia Semenic, Nicola Straiton, Sandy Middleton
{"title":"Effects of implementation strategies on nursing practice and patient outcomes: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Guillaume Fontaine, Billy Vinette, Charlene Weight, Marc-André Maheu-Cadotte, Andréane Lavallée, Marie-France Deschênes, Alexandra Lapierre, Sonia A Castiglione, Gabrielle Chicoine, Geneviève Rouleau, Nikolas Argiropoulos, Kristin Konnyu, Meagan Mooney, Christine E Cassidy, Tanya Mailhot, Patrick Lavoie, Catherine Pépin, Sylvie Cossette, Marie-Pierre Gagnon, Sonia Semenic, Nicola Straiton, Sandy Middleton","doi":"10.1186/s13012-024-01398-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Implementation strategies targeting individual healthcare professionals and teams, such as audit and feedback, educational meetings, opinion leaders, and reminders, have demonstrated potential in promoting evidence-based nursing practice. This systematic review examined the effects of the 19 Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization Care (EPOC) healthcare professional-level implementation strategies on nursing practice and patient outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review was conducted following the Cochrane Handbook, with six databases searched up to February 2023 for randomized studies and non-randomized controlled studies evaluating the effects of EPOC implementation strategies on nursing practice. Study selection and data extraction were performed in Covidence. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted in RevMan, while studies not eligible for meta-analysis were synthesized narratively based on the direction of effects. The quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 21,571 unique records, 204 studies (152 randomized, 52 controlled, non-randomized) enrolling 36,544 nurses and 340,320 patients were included. Common strategies (> 10% of studies) were educational meetings, educational materials, guidelines, reminders, audit and feedback, tailored interventions, educational outreach, and opinion leaders. Implementation strategies as a whole improved clinical practice outcomes compared to no active intervention, despite high heterogeneity. Group and individual education, patient-mediated interventions, reminders, tailored interventions and opinion leaders had statistically significant effects on clinical practice outcomes. Individual education improved nurses' attitude, knowledge, perceived control, and skills, while group education also influenced perceived social norms. Although meta-analyses indicate a small, non-statistically significant effect of multifaceted versus single strategies on clinical practice, the narrative synthesis of non-meta-analyzed studies shows favorable outcomes in all studies comparing multifaceted versus single strategies. Group and individual education, as well as tailored interventions, had statistically significant effects on patient outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Multiple types of implementation strategies may enhance evidence-based nursing practice, though effects vary due to strategy complexity, contextual factors, and variability in outcome measurement. Some evidence suggests that multifaceted strategies are more effective than single component strategies. Effects on patient outcomes are modest. Healthcare organizations and implementation practitioners may consider employing multifaceted, tailored strategies to address local barriers, expand the use of underutilized strategies, and assess the long-term impact of strategies on nursing practice and patient outcomes.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>PROSPERO CRD42019130446.</p>","PeriodicalId":54995,"journal":{"name":"Implementation Science","volume":"19 1","pages":"68"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11443951/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Implementation Science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-024-01398-0","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Implementation strategies targeting individual healthcare professionals and teams, such as audit and feedback, educational meetings, opinion leaders, and reminders, have demonstrated potential in promoting evidence-based nursing practice. This systematic review examined the effects of the 19 Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization Care (EPOC) healthcare professional-level implementation strategies on nursing practice and patient outcomes.

Methods: A systematic review was conducted following the Cochrane Handbook, with six databases searched up to February 2023 for randomized studies and non-randomized controlled studies evaluating the effects of EPOC implementation strategies on nursing practice. Study selection and data extraction were performed in Covidence. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted in RevMan, while studies not eligible for meta-analysis were synthesized narratively based on the direction of effects. The quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE.

Results: Out of 21,571 unique records, 204 studies (152 randomized, 52 controlled, non-randomized) enrolling 36,544 nurses and 340,320 patients were included. Common strategies (> 10% of studies) were educational meetings, educational materials, guidelines, reminders, audit and feedback, tailored interventions, educational outreach, and opinion leaders. Implementation strategies as a whole improved clinical practice outcomes compared to no active intervention, despite high heterogeneity. Group and individual education, patient-mediated interventions, reminders, tailored interventions and opinion leaders had statistically significant effects on clinical practice outcomes. Individual education improved nurses' attitude, knowledge, perceived control, and skills, while group education also influenced perceived social norms. Although meta-analyses indicate a small, non-statistically significant effect of multifaceted versus single strategies on clinical practice, the narrative synthesis of non-meta-analyzed studies shows favorable outcomes in all studies comparing multifaceted versus single strategies. Group and individual education, as well as tailored interventions, had statistically significant effects on patient outcomes.

Conclusions: Multiple types of implementation strategies may enhance evidence-based nursing practice, though effects vary due to strategy complexity, contextual factors, and variability in outcome measurement. Some evidence suggests that multifaceted strategies are more effective than single component strategies. Effects on patient outcomes are modest. Healthcare organizations and implementation practitioners may consider employing multifaceted, tailored strategies to address local barriers, expand the use of underutilized strategies, and assess the long-term impact of strategies on nursing practice and patient outcomes.

Trial registration: PROSPERO CRD42019130446.

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
实施策略对护理实践和患者疗效的影响:一项全面的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:针对医护人员个人和团队的实施策略,如审核和反馈、教育会议、意见领袖和提醒等,在促进循证护理实践方面已显示出潜力。本系统性综述研究了 19 项 Cochrane 有效实践和组织护理(EPOC)医护专业人员层面的实施策略对护理实践和患者预后的影响:根据 Cochrane 手册进行了系统性综述,检索了截至 2023 年 2 月的 6 个数据库,其中包括评估 EPOC 实施策略对护理实践影响的随机研究和非随机对照研究。研究选择和数据提取在 Covidence 中进行。随机效应荟萃分析在RevMan中进行,而不符合荟萃分析条件的研究则根据效应方向进行叙述性综合。证据质量采用 GRADE 进行评估:在 21,571 条唯一记录中,共纳入了 204 项研究(152 项随机研究、52 项对照研究和非随机研究),涉及 36,544 名护士和 340,320 名患者。常见的策略(> 10%的研究)包括教育会议、教材、指南、提醒、审核和反馈、定制干预、教育推广和意见领袖。尽管异质性很高,但与不采取积极干预措施相比,实施策略整体上改善了临床实践结果。集体和个人教育、以患者为媒介的干预、提醒、有针对性的干预和意见领袖对临床实践结果有显著的统计学影响。个别教育改善了护士的态度、知识、感知控制和技能,而集体教育也影响了感知社会规范。尽管荟萃分析表明,多方面策略与单一策略相比,对临床实践的影响较小且无统计学意义,但对未进行荟萃分析的研究进行的叙述性综合显示,在所有比较多方面策略与单一策略的研究中,多方面策略与单一策略都取得了良好的结果。小组和个人教育以及量身定制的干预措施对患者的治疗效果具有统计学意义:多种类型的实施策略可加强循证护理实践,但效果因策略的复杂性、背景因素和结果测量的差异性而有所不同。一些证据表明,多方面的策略比单一组成部分的策略更有效。对患者疗效的影响不大。医疗机构和实施人员可以考虑采用多方面的、量身定制的策略来解决当地的障碍,扩大未充分利用的策略的使用范围,并评估这些策略对护理实践和患者预后的长期影响:ProCORD42019130446.
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
Implementation Science
Implementation Science 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
14.30
自引率
11.10%
发文量
78
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Implementation Science is a leading journal committed to disseminating evidence on methods for integrating research findings into routine healthcare practice and policy. It offers a multidisciplinary platform for studying implementation strategies, encompassing their development, outcomes, economics, processes, and associated factors. The journal prioritizes rigorous studies and innovative, theory-based approaches, covering implementation science across various healthcare services and settings.
期刊最新文献
Training and education provided to local change champions within implementation trials: a rapid systematic review. Assessing the comparative effectiveness of ECHO and coaching implementation strategies in a jail/provider MOUD implementation trial. Looking under the hood of a hybrid two-way texting intervention to improve early retention on antiretroviral therapy in Malawi: an implementation fidelity evaluation. Improving the adoption of a school-based nutrition program: findings from a collaborative network of randomised trials. Finding the right dose: a scoping review examining facilitation as an implementation strategy for evidence-based stroke care.
×
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