General Practice and Primary Care - Research Publications
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9
-
ItemDementia Risk Reduction in Primary Care: A Scoping Review of Clinical Guidelines Using a Behavioral Specificity Framework(IOS PRESS, 2022)BACKGROUND: Primary care practitioners are being called upon to work with their patients to reduce dementia risk. However, it is unclear who should do what with whom, when, and under what circumstances. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aimed to identify clinical guidelines for dementia risk reduction (DRR) in primary care settings, synthesize the guidelines into actionable behaviors, and appraise the guidelines for specificity. METHODS: Terms related to "dementia", "guidelines", and "risk reduction" were entered into two academic databases and two web search engines. Guidelines were included if they referred specifically to clinical practices for healthcare professionals for primary prevention of dementia. Included guidelines were analyzed using a directed content analysis method, underpinned by the Action-Actor-Context-Target-Time framework for specifying behavior. RESULTS: Eighteen guidelines were included in the analysis. Together, the guidelines recommended six distinct clusters of actions for DRR. These were to 1) invite patients to discuss DRR, 2) identify patients with risk factors for dementia, 3) discuss DRR, 4) manage dementia risk factors, 5) signpost to additional support, and 6) follow up. Guidelines recommended various actors, contexts, targets, and times for performing these actions. Together, guidelines lacked specificity and were at times contradictory. CONCLUSION: Currently available guidelines allow various approaches to promoting DRR in primary care. Primary care teams are advised to draw on the results of the review to decide which actions to undertake and the locally appropriate actors, contexts, targets, and times for these actions. Documenting these decisions in more specific, local guidelines for promoting DRR should facilitate implementation.
-
ItemThe CORE study-An adapted mental health experience codesign intervention to improve psychosocial recovery for people with severe mental illness: A stepped wedge cluster randomized-controlled trial(WILEY, 2021-12)BACKGROUND: Mental health policies outline the need for codesign of services and quality improvement in partnership with service users and staff (and sometimes carers), and yet, evidence of systematic implementation and the impacts on healthcare outcomes is limited. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to test whether an adapted mental health experience codesign intervention to improve recovery-orientation of services led to greater psychosocial recovery outcomes for service users. DESIGN: A stepped wedge cluster randomized-controlled trial was conducted. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Four Mental Health Community Support Services providers, 287 people living with severe mental illnesses, 61 carers and 120 staff were recruited across Victoria, Australia. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The 24-item Revised Recovery Assessment Scale (RAS-R) measured individual psychosocial recovery. RESULTS: A total of 841 observations were completed with 287 service users. The intention-to-treat analysis found RAS-R scores to be similar between the intervention (mean = 84.7, SD= 15.6) and control (mean = 86.5, SD= 15.3) phases; the adjusted estimated difference in the mean RAS-R score was -1.70 (95% confidence interval: -3.81 to 0.40; p = .11). DISCUSSION: This first trial of an adapted mental health experience codesign intervention for psychosocial recovery outcomes found no difference between the intervention and control arms. CONCLUSIONS: More attention to the conditions that are required for eight essential mechanisms of change to support codesign processes and implementation is needed. PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT: The State consumer (Victorian Mental Illness Awareness Council) and carer peak bodies (Tandem representing mental health carers) codeveloped the intervention. The adapted intervention was facilitated by coinvestigators with lived-experiences who were coauthors for the trial and process evaluation protocols, the engagement model and explanatory model of change for the trial.
-
Item435 - Perspectives of the general public on dementia risk reduction (DRR) and implications for implementation: a qualitative evidence synthesis(Cambridge University Press (CUP), 2020-10)There is limited understanding of which factors most influence take-up of DRR behaviour in the general population. This evidence gap may limit the effectiveness of DRR implementation and, hence, impede translation of increasing evidence for DRR1 into real-world public health benefits. Reviews of quantitative studies have identified poor knowledge and persistence of myths about ageing2,3 as important. However, these findings are limited by the scope of included questionnaires. Qualitative literature reporting the perspectives of the general public offers an opportunity to increase this understanding. Qualitative studies can examine poorly understood phenomena in greater depth and with fewer a priori assumptions. Qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) is increasingly recognised as valuable, particularly in relation to complex interventions like DRR. We will present a QES regarding the perspectives of dementia- free members of the general public towards DRR. Searches indicate that no QES for this topic currently exists. Systematic searches of Medline, PsycINFO, Embase and CINAHL for studies published since 1995 that have used qualitative methods to explore DRR perspectives in the general public were undertaken, supplemented by hand searches of included studies’ reference lists. Following independent screening by two reviewers, 41 publications based on 37 individual studies meeting inclusion criteria have been identified. Data will be analysed using thematic synthesis, as outlined by Thomas and Harden (2008)4 and recommended for QES regarding complex health interventions5. ‘Line-by-line’ inductive coding and development of descriptive themes across studies will produce a summary of the perspectives of the general public for DRR. A conceptual framework explaining the relationships between key themes and considering the implications for implementation will be proposed. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) tool will be used to appraise included studies. Rather than imposing an arbitrary quality cut-off point for inclusion, sensitivity analyses will be used to examine the influence of lower quality studies on review findings. Finally, the Confidence in the Evidence from Qualitative Reviews (CERQual) approach will facilitate assessment of confidence in review findings to aid future use. Data extraction is ongoing. Findings from this synthesis will support better targeted quantitative examination of DRR implementation determinants and more strategic intervention design. 1.World Health Organisation. Risk reduction of cognitive decline and dementia: WHO guidelines. World Health Organisation. 2019. Geneva. Licence CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO 2.Cahill, S., Pierce, M., Werner, P., Darley, A., Bobersky, A. A systematic review of the public’s knowledge and understanding of Alzheimer’s disease and dementia. Alz Dis Assoc Disord. 2015; 29:255-275 3.Cations, M., Radisic, G., Crotty, M., Laver, K.E. What does the general public understand about prevention and treatment of dementia? A systematic review of population-based surveys. PLoS One. 2018, 13(4):e0196085 4.Thomas, J. and Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews, BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2008 July; 8:45. doi 10.1186/1471-2288-8-45 5.Noyes, J., Booth, A., Cargo, M., et al. (2018). Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series – paper 1: introduction. J of Clin Epidemiol. 2018; 97:35-38
-
ItemGeneral population perspectives of dementia risk reduction and the implications for intervention: A systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative evidence(PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE, 2021-09-17)BACKGROUND: Evidence for the potential prevention of dementia through lifestyle risk factor modification is growing and has prompted examination of implementation approaches. Understanding the general population's perspectives regarding dementia risk reduction is key to implementation. This may provide useful insights into more effective and efficient ways to help people change relevant beliefs, motivations and behaviour patterns. We conducted a systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative evidence to develop an integrated model of general population dementia risk reduction perspectives and the implications for intervention in research and implementation contexts. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We searched electronic databases, supplemented by lateral search techniques, to identify studies published since 1995 reporting qualitative dementia risk reduction perspectives of the non-expert general population who do not have dementia. Thematic synthesis, incorporating an expert panel discussion, was used to identify overarching themes and develop an integrated model to guide intervention to support individuals to adopt and maintain dementia risk reduction behaviour patterns. Quality of included studies and confidence in review findings were systematically appraised. We included 50 papers, reflecting the views of more than 4,500 individuals. Main themes were: 1) The need for effective education about a complex topic to prevent confusion and facilitate understanding and empowerment; 2) Personally relevant short- and long-term benefits of dementia risk reduction behaviour patterns can generate value and facilitate action; 3) Individuals benefit from trusted, reliable and sensitive support to convert understanding to personal commitment to relevant behaviour change; 4) Choice, control and relevant self-regulatory supports help individuals take-action and direct their own progress; 5) Collaborative and empowering social opportunities can facilitate and propagate dementia risk reduction behaviour change; 6) Individual behaviour patterns occur in social contexts that influence beliefs through heuristic processes and need to be understood. Findings indicate that, for intervention: 1) education is key, but both content and delivery need to be tailored; 2) complementary interventions to support self-regulation mechanisms and social processes will increase education effectiveness; 3) co-design principles should guide intervention design and delivery processes; 4) all interventions need to be supported by context-specific data. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and thematic synthesis provides a comprehensive, integrated model of the dementia risk reduction perspectives of the general population and intervention approaches to support behaviour change that can be applied in clinical trial and real-world implementation settings. Findings extend existing knowledge and may assist more effective intervention design and delivery.
-
ItemImplementing dementia risk reduction in primary care: a preliminary conceptual model based on a scoping review of practitioners' views(CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS, 2019)Primary care practitioners (PCPs) do not routinely promote dementia risk reduction. The purpose of this study was to map the published literature on the views of PCPs about dementia risk reduction, in order to identify implementation constructs and strategies crucial to the development of an implementation intervention to support dementia risk reduction in primary care. We undertook a scoping review of the PCPs' views about promoting brain health for reducing dementia risk. We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Embase for English-language articles published between 1995 and December 2017. We then applied the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and matched Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change to the scoping review findings in order to develop a preliminary implementation model. Eight articles reported views of PCPs about dementia prevention. Study findings were mapped to 5 of the 39 CFIR constructs: (i) knowledge and beliefs about dementia risk reduction, (ii) evidence strength and quality, (iii) relative priority, (iv) available resources, and (v) external policy and incentives. The findings suggest implementation strategies to consider in our preliminary model include (i) educational meetings, (ii) identifying and preparing champions, (iii) conducting local consensus discussions, (iv) altering incentive structures, and (v) capturing and sharing local knowledge. There have been few studies about the views of PCPs about dementia risk reduction. Implementation in the primary care setting is fundamental to early identification of risk and supporting preventive practices, but it needs to focus on more than just education for PCPs. We need more up-to-date and in-depth data on the views of PCPs about dementia risk reduction and context-specific analyses of implementation needs. Further research into effective primary care interventions to reduce dementia risk is expected to support implementation efforts.
-
ItemAdvancing engagement methods for trials: the CORE study relational model of engagement for a stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial of experience-based co-design for people living with severe mental illnesses(BMC, 2017-04-08)BACKGROUND: Engagement is essential in trials research but is rarely embedded across all stages of the research continuum. The development, use, effectiveness and value of engagement in trials research is poorly researched and understood, and models of engagement are rarely informed by theory. This article describes an innovative methodological approach for the development and application of a relational model of engagement in a stepped wedge designed cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT), the CORE study. The purpose of the model is to embed engagement across the continuum of the trial which will test if an experience-based co-design intervention improves psychosocial recovery for people affected by severe mental illness. METHODS: The model was developed in three stages and used a structured iterative approach. A context mapping assessment of trial sites was followed by a literature review on recruitment and retention of hard-to-reach groups in complex interventions and RCTs. Relevant theoretical and philosophical underpinnings were identified by an additional review of literature to inform model development and enactment of engagement activities. RESULTS: Policy, organisational and service user data combined with evidence from the literature on barriers to recruitment provided contextual information. Four perspectives support the theoretical framework of the relational model of engagement and this is organised around two facets: the relational and continuous. The relational facet is underpinned by relational ethical theories and participatory action research principles. The continuous facet is supported by systems thinking and translation theories. These combine to enact an ethics of engagement and evoke knowledge mobilisation to reach the higher order goals of the model. CONCLUSIONS: Engagement models are invaluable for trials research, but there are opportunities to advance their theoretical development and application, particularly within stepped wedge designed studies where there may be a significant waiting period between enrolment in a study and receipt of an intervention.
-
ItemCorrection.(BMJ, 2015-07-14)
-
ItemNo Preview Available
-
ItemThe CORE study protocol: a stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial to test a co-design technique to optimise psychosocial recovery outcomes for people affected by mental illness in the community mental health setting(BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP, 2015)INTRODUCTION: User engagement in mental health service design is heralded as integral to health systems quality and performance, but does engagement improve health outcomes? This article describes the CORE study protocol, a novel stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial (SWCRCT) to improve psychosocial recovery outcomes for people with severe mental illness. METHODS: An SWCRCT with a nested process evaluation will be conducted over nearly 4 years in Victoria, Australia. 11 teams from four mental health service providers will be randomly allocated to one of three dates 9 months apart to start the intervention. The intervention, a modified version of Mental Health Experience Co-Design (MH ECO), will be delivered to 30 service users, 30 carers and 10 staff in each cluster. Outcome data will be collected at baseline (6 months) and at completion of each intervention wave. The primary outcome is improvement in recovery score using the 24-item Revised Recovery Assessment Scale for service users. Secondary outcomes are improvements to user and carer mental health and well-being using the shortened 8-item version of the WHOQOL Quality of Life scale (EUROHIS), changes to staff attitudes using the 19-item Staff Attitudes to Recovery Scale and recovery orientation of services using the 36-item Recovery Self Assessment Scale (provider version). Intervention and usual care periods will be compared using a linear mixed effects model for continuous outcomes and a generalised linear mixed effects model for binary outcomes. Participants will be analysed in the group that the cluster was assigned to at each time point. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The University of Melbourne, Human Research Ethics Committee (1340299.3) and the Federal and State Departments of Health Committees (Project 20/2014) granted ethics approval. Baseline data results will be reported in 2015 and outcomes data in 2017. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12614000457640.