Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Practice Facilitation Within Primary Care Settings

Abstract Purpose This study was a systematic review with a quantitative synthesis of the literature examining the overall effect size of practice facilitation and possible moderating factors. The primary outcome was the change in evidence-based practice behavior calculated as a standardized mean dif...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Annals of family medicine 2012, Vol.10 (1), p.63-74
Hauptverfasser: Baskerville, N. Bruce, MHA, PhD, Liddy, Clare, MD, MSc, CCFP, FCFP, Hogg, William, MSc, MClSc, MDCM, CCFP, FCFP
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 74
container_issue 1
container_start_page 63
container_title Annals of family medicine
container_volume 10
creator Baskerville, N. Bruce, MHA, PhD
Liddy, Clare, MD, MSc, CCFP, FCFP
Hogg, William, MSc, MClSc, MDCM, CCFP, FCFP
description Abstract Purpose This study was a systematic review with a quantitative synthesis of the literature examining the overall effect size of practice facilitation and possible moderating factors. The primary outcome was the change in evidence-based practice behavior calculated as a standardized mean difference. Methods In this systematic review, we searched 4 electronic databases and the reference lists of published literature reviews to find practice facilitation studies that identified evidence-based guideline implementation within primary care practices as the outcome. We included randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies published from 1966 to December 2010 in English language only peer-reviewed journals. Reviews of each study were conducted and assessed for quality; data were abstracted, and standardized mean difference estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Publication bias, influence, subgroup, and meta-regression analyses were also conducted. Results Twenty-three studies contributed to the analysis for a total of 1,398 participating practices: 697 practice facilitation intervention and 701 control group practices. The degree of variability between studies was consistent with what would be expected to occur by chance alone (I2 = 20%). An overall effect size of 0.56 (95% CI, 0.43-0.68) favored practice facilitation (z = 8.76; P
doi_str_mv 10.1370/afm.1312
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3262473</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>1_s2_0_S1544170912600122</els_id><sourcerecordid>915384955</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c426t-5f3d4e57234f4896fa40292d1e354c0cd5c4807adc7fb77acb299fe4f833cfed3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpVkd1LHDEUxUOp1E_wL5C81ZfRfM1m56UgS_0AxdJVxKdwN3OjsTMZm2SV_e_NsrqtT7lwf_fkcA4h-5wdcanZMbi-DFx8IVu8Vqrimuuv65k1m2Q7pSfGBBdSfCObQgjJxlJukfvpImXsIXtLf-OLx1cKoaVXmKE6CdAtkk90cPRXBFsYpKdgfedzORgCvfP50Yey9D3EBZ1ARDrFnH14SLtkw0GXcO_93SG3pz9vJufV5fXZxeTksrJKjHJVO9kqrLWQyqlxM3KgmGhEy1HWyjLb1laNmYbWajfTGuxMNI1D5Yp967CVO-THSvd5PuuxtRhyhM48rzyZAbz5vAn-0TwML0aKkVBaFoHv7wJx-DvHlE3vk8Wug4DDPJmG13Ksmrou5OGKtHFIKaJb_8KZWRZhShFmWURBD_53tQY_kv9nG0s2JfdobOeDt9D9wQWmp2EeS_zJcJOEYWa67HJZJRcjxnhReQNoYpo4</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>915384955</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Practice Facilitation Within Primary Care Settings</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Baskerville, N. Bruce, MHA, PhD ; Liddy, Clare, MD, MSc, CCFP, FCFP ; Hogg, William, MSc, MClSc, MDCM, CCFP, FCFP</creator><creatorcontrib>Baskerville, N. Bruce, MHA, PhD ; Liddy, Clare, MD, MSc, CCFP, FCFP ; Hogg, William, MSc, MClSc, MDCM, CCFP, FCFP</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract Purpose This study was a systematic review with a quantitative synthesis of the literature examining the overall effect size of practice facilitation and possible moderating factors. The primary outcome was the change in evidence-based practice behavior calculated as a standardized mean difference. Methods In this systematic review, we searched 4 electronic databases and the reference lists of published literature reviews to find practice facilitation studies that identified evidence-based guideline implementation within primary care practices as the outcome. We included randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies published from 1966 to December 2010 in English language only peer-reviewed journals. Reviews of each study were conducted and assessed for quality; data were abstracted, and standardized mean difference estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Publication bias, influence, subgroup, and meta-regression analyses were also conducted. Results Twenty-three studies contributed to the analysis for a total of 1,398 participating practices: 697 practice facilitation intervention and 701 control group practices. The degree of variability between studies was consistent with what would be expected to occur by chance alone (I2 = 20%). An overall effect size of 0.56 (95% CI, 0.43-0.68) favored practice facilitation (z = 8.76; P &lt;.001), and publication bias was evident. Primary care practices are 2.76 (95% CI, 2.18-3.43) times more likely to adopt evidence-based guidelines through practice facilitation. Meta-regression analysis indicated that tailoring (P = .05), the intensity of the intervention ( P = .03), and the number of intervention practices per facilitator (P = .004) modified evidence-based guideline adoption. Conclusions Practice facilitation has a moderately robust effect on evidence-based guideline adoption within primary care. Implementation fidelity factors, such as tailoring, the number of practices per facilitator, and the intensity of the intervention, have important resource implications.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1544-1709</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1544-1717</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1370/afm.1312</identifier><identifier>PMID: 22230833</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: American Academy of Family Physicians</publisher><subject>Clinical Trials as Topic ; Evidence-Based Practice ; Health Facility Administrators ; Humans ; Internal Medicine ; Primary Health Care - methods ; Primary Health Care - organization &amp; administration ; Primary Health Care - standards ; Quality Improvement ; Regression Analysis ; Systematic Reviews</subject><ispartof>Annals of family medicine, 2012, Vol.10 (1), p.63-74</ispartof><rights>Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.</rights><rights>2012 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc. 2012</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c426t-5f3d4e57234f4896fa40292d1e354c0cd5c4807adc7fb77acb299fe4f833cfed3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3262473/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3262473/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,881,4009,27902,27903,27904,53769,53771</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22230833$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Baskerville, N. Bruce, MHA, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liddy, Clare, MD, MSc, CCFP, FCFP</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hogg, William, MSc, MClSc, MDCM, CCFP, FCFP</creatorcontrib><title>Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Practice Facilitation Within Primary Care Settings</title><title>Annals of family medicine</title><addtitle>Ann Fam Med</addtitle><description>Abstract Purpose This study was a systematic review with a quantitative synthesis of the literature examining the overall effect size of practice facilitation and possible moderating factors. The primary outcome was the change in evidence-based practice behavior calculated as a standardized mean difference. Methods In this systematic review, we searched 4 electronic databases and the reference lists of published literature reviews to find practice facilitation studies that identified evidence-based guideline implementation within primary care practices as the outcome. We included randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies published from 1966 to December 2010 in English language only peer-reviewed journals. Reviews of each study were conducted and assessed for quality; data were abstracted, and standardized mean difference estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Publication bias, influence, subgroup, and meta-regression analyses were also conducted. Results Twenty-three studies contributed to the analysis for a total of 1,398 participating practices: 697 practice facilitation intervention and 701 control group practices. The degree of variability between studies was consistent with what would be expected to occur by chance alone (I2 = 20%). An overall effect size of 0.56 (95% CI, 0.43-0.68) favored practice facilitation (z = 8.76; P &lt;.001), and publication bias was evident. Primary care practices are 2.76 (95% CI, 2.18-3.43) times more likely to adopt evidence-based guidelines through practice facilitation. Meta-regression analysis indicated that tailoring (P = .05), the intensity of the intervention ( P = .03), and the number of intervention practices per facilitator (P = .004) modified evidence-based guideline adoption. Conclusions Practice facilitation has a moderately robust effect on evidence-based guideline adoption within primary care. Implementation fidelity factors, such as tailoring, the number of practices per facilitator, and the intensity of the intervention, have important resource implications.</description><subject>Clinical Trials as Topic</subject><subject>Evidence-Based Practice</subject><subject>Health Facility Administrators</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Internal Medicine</subject><subject>Primary Health Care - methods</subject><subject>Primary Health Care - organization &amp; administration</subject><subject>Primary Health Care - standards</subject><subject>Quality Improvement</subject><subject>Regression Analysis</subject><subject>Systematic Reviews</subject><issn>1544-1709</issn><issn>1544-1717</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpVkd1LHDEUxUOp1E_wL5C81ZfRfM1m56UgS_0AxdJVxKdwN3OjsTMZm2SV_e_NsrqtT7lwf_fkcA4h-5wdcanZMbi-DFx8IVu8Vqrimuuv65k1m2Q7pSfGBBdSfCObQgjJxlJukfvpImXsIXtLf-OLx1cKoaVXmKE6CdAtkk90cPRXBFsYpKdgfedzORgCvfP50Yey9D3EBZ1ARDrFnH14SLtkw0GXcO_93SG3pz9vJufV5fXZxeTksrJKjHJVO9kqrLWQyqlxM3KgmGhEy1HWyjLb1laNmYbWajfTGuxMNI1D5Yp967CVO-THSvd5PuuxtRhyhM48rzyZAbz5vAn-0TwML0aKkVBaFoHv7wJx-DvHlE3vk8Wug4DDPJmG13Ksmrou5OGKtHFIKaJb_8KZWRZhShFmWURBD_53tQY_kv9nG0s2JfdobOeDt9D9wQWmp2EeS_zJcJOEYWa67HJZJRcjxnhReQNoYpo4</recordid><startdate>2012</startdate><enddate>2012</enddate><creator>Baskerville, N. Bruce, MHA, PhD</creator><creator>Liddy, Clare, MD, MSc, CCFP, FCFP</creator><creator>Hogg, William, MSc, MClSc, MDCM, CCFP, FCFP</creator><general>American Academy of Family Physicians</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2012</creationdate><title>Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Practice Facilitation Within Primary Care Settings</title><author>Baskerville, N. Bruce, MHA, PhD ; Liddy, Clare, MD, MSc, CCFP, FCFP ; Hogg, William, MSc, MClSc, MDCM, CCFP, FCFP</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c426t-5f3d4e57234f4896fa40292d1e354c0cd5c4807adc7fb77acb299fe4f833cfed3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Clinical Trials as Topic</topic><topic>Evidence-Based Practice</topic><topic>Health Facility Administrators</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Internal Medicine</topic><topic>Primary Health Care - methods</topic><topic>Primary Health Care - organization &amp; administration</topic><topic>Primary Health Care - standards</topic><topic>Quality Improvement</topic><topic>Regression Analysis</topic><topic>Systematic Reviews</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Baskerville, N. Bruce, MHA, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liddy, Clare, MD, MSc, CCFP, FCFP</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hogg, William, MSc, MClSc, MDCM, CCFP, FCFP</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Annals of family medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Baskerville, N. Bruce, MHA, PhD</au><au>Liddy, Clare, MD, MSc, CCFP, FCFP</au><au>Hogg, William, MSc, MClSc, MDCM, CCFP, FCFP</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Practice Facilitation Within Primary Care Settings</atitle><jtitle>Annals of family medicine</jtitle><addtitle>Ann Fam Med</addtitle><date>2012</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>10</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>63</spage><epage>74</epage><pages>63-74</pages><issn>1544-1709</issn><eissn>1544-1717</eissn><abstract>Abstract Purpose This study was a systematic review with a quantitative synthesis of the literature examining the overall effect size of practice facilitation and possible moderating factors. The primary outcome was the change in evidence-based practice behavior calculated as a standardized mean difference. Methods In this systematic review, we searched 4 electronic databases and the reference lists of published literature reviews to find practice facilitation studies that identified evidence-based guideline implementation within primary care practices as the outcome. We included randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies published from 1966 to December 2010 in English language only peer-reviewed journals. Reviews of each study were conducted and assessed for quality; data were abstracted, and standardized mean difference estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Publication bias, influence, subgroup, and meta-regression analyses were also conducted. Results Twenty-three studies contributed to the analysis for a total of 1,398 participating practices: 697 practice facilitation intervention and 701 control group practices. The degree of variability between studies was consistent with what would be expected to occur by chance alone (I2 = 20%). An overall effect size of 0.56 (95% CI, 0.43-0.68) favored practice facilitation (z = 8.76; P &lt;.001), and publication bias was evident. Primary care practices are 2.76 (95% CI, 2.18-3.43) times more likely to adopt evidence-based guidelines through practice facilitation. Meta-regression analysis indicated that tailoring (P = .05), the intensity of the intervention ( P = .03), and the number of intervention practices per facilitator (P = .004) modified evidence-based guideline adoption. Conclusions Practice facilitation has a moderately robust effect on evidence-based guideline adoption within primary care. Implementation fidelity factors, such as tailoring, the number of practices per facilitator, and the intensity of the intervention, have important resource implications.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>American Academy of Family Physicians</pub><pmid>22230833</pmid><doi>10.1370/afm.1312</doi><tpages>12</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1544-1709
ispartof Annals of family medicine, 2012, Vol.10 (1), p.63-74
issn 1544-1709
1544-1717
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3262473
source MEDLINE; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central
subjects Clinical Trials as Topic
Evidence-Based Practice
Health Facility Administrators
Humans
Internal Medicine
Primary Health Care - methods
Primary Health Care - organization & administration
Primary Health Care - standards
Quality Improvement
Regression Analysis
Systematic Reviews
title Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Practice Facilitation Within Primary Care Settings
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-25T02%3A23%3A00IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Systematic%20Review%20and%20Meta-Analysis%20of%20Practice%20Facilitation%20Within%20Primary%20Care%20Settings&rft.jtitle=Annals%20of%20family%20medicine&rft.au=Baskerville,%20N.%20Bruce,%20MHA,%20PhD&rft.date=2012&rft.volume=10&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=63&rft.epage=74&rft.pages=63-74&rft.issn=1544-1709&rft.eissn=1544-1717&rft_id=info:doi/10.1370/afm.1312&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E915384955%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=915384955&rft_id=info:pmid/22230833&rft_els_id=1_s2_0_S1544170912600122&rfr_iscdi=true