Knowledge translation approaches to implement guidelines? Plan, assess, tailor, and learn
© Ducharme; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2010
Published: 10 December 2010
The planning phase involves 1) selecting one or a few key messages as priorities for implementati on from the list of guideline recommendations (e.g., long-term daily controller medication for children with asthma); 2) identifying the target population of health care professionals (e.g., general practitioners) and settings (e.g.,, community practice); 3) adapting the message to the target audience (e.g., prescribing by physicians; verifying adherence by pharmacists; and patient understanding of the role, safety and side effects of asthma medications by educators); and 4) selecting the action(s) to be taken and the outcomes to be measured to document adherence to the target implementation priority and its health impact.
The assessment phase includes: 1) assessing the baseline status of implementation of the selected priority(ies) preferably using objective, rather than reported, uptake by the target audience (for example, reviews of medical charts or prescriptions are superior to reported actions, which are influenced by the social desirability bias); the objective assessment of implementation may be done pre- and post-intervention or in an iterative fashion, sometimes by interrupted time series analysis, to document not only the impact of an intervention but also the sustainability of the implementation intervention. 2) Secondly, the intention to implement the specific action is an important guide to predict action. Indeed, in a large systematic review, by simply asking the target audience Sheehan discovered that 97% of those who did not intend to implement a specific action never did, while only 53% of those who intended to take the action actually did . This is important as the barriers are different for intenders and non-intenders. According to the Cabana taxonomy [6, 7], non-intenders face seven internal barriers related to beliefs, knowledge and attitudes and three external barriers affecting health care professionals’ ability to conform, namely barriers related to patient, guideline and environmental factors. For intenders, the intention-behaviour gap results from two main problems that can be addressed, failing to get started and getting derailed. It is critical to assess the barriers and facilitators faced by the target audience as well as the potential solutions proposed ideally by the target audience, in order to tailor the KT intervention. The omission of the assessment step is believed to explain the low success rate of a variety of KT interventions, which hovers around 10% .
Tailoring the KT intervention, by selecting both the KT strategy and change theory9 that best fit the target audience, is thus critical. The Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Review Group is an outstanding source of reference to select KT interventions, displaying summary estimates for various interventions tested by randomized controlled trials [8–11]. Unfortunately, it is far easier to change intention than it is to change behaviour . The use of action theories to bridge the intention-behaviour gap has been well described . For example, implementation intentions also called the “if-then plan” has been shown to significantly improve goal attainment . It consists of four steps: identifying the self-regulatory problem Y (seeing a patient with poorly controlled asthma); identifying a cognitive/behavioural response X that would help resolve the problem (write a prescription of inhaled corticosteroids); identifying a good opportunity to instigate the response, serving as a cue (asthma quiz score of two or more filled in the clinic setting) ; and making a plan by generating in writing a contingency plan - if it is a situation Y, then I will do X (if I see a patient with poorly controlled asthma, that is, with an asthma quiz score of two or more, I will write a prescription for the inhaled corticosteroids) .
Finally, both uptake and outcome measures should be monitored for sustainability. We should learn from successes and failures as the knowledge to action cycle implies improvement through iterative rotation around the cycle. Ideally, the intervention should be tested in the context of a randomized controlled trial to best assess the impact of the intervention; because of the likelihood of contamination between health care professionals working in the same setting (clinic, hospital, etc.), cluster randomisation may be ideal to address this issue . Whenever possible, having a third arm to examine barriers and facilitators to the uptake of the intervention is useful to better learn from our endeavour. Alternatively, such qualitative analysis of barriers and facilitators can be done after a successful or failed intervention to understand the mechanistic pathway.
In summary, the Knowledge-to-Action cycle provides the framework for designing and testing effective intervention strategies to improve implementation of guidelines by any audience, including health care professionals. The key decision remains to select a simple actionable message.
- Martin IR, Reid JJ: Dissemination of guidelines on medical practice. N Z Med J. 2003, 116: U312-PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hibble A, Kanka D, Pencheon D, Pooles F: Guidelines in general practice: the new Tower of Babel?. Brit Med J. 1998, 317: 862-3.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lavis JN, Lomas J, Hamid M, Sewankambo NK: Assessing country-level efforts to link research to action. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2006Google Scholar
- Graham ID, Logan J, Harrison MB: Lost in knowledge translation: Time for a map?. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2006, 26: 13-24. 10.1002/chp.47.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Sheeran P: Intention-behavior relations: A conceptual and empirical review. European Review of Social Psychology. 2002, 12: 1-36. 10.1080/14792772143000003.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Cabana MD, Rand CS, Powe NR: Why don't physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? A framework for improvement. JAMA. 1999, 282: 1458-65. 10.1001/jama.282.15.1458.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Espeland A, Baerheim A: Factors affecting general practitioners' decisions about plain radiography for back pain: implications for classification of guideline barriers--a qualitative study. BMC Health Services Research. 2003, 3: 8-10.1186/1472-6963-3-8.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Grimshaw JM, Thomas RE, MacLennan G: Effectiveness and efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies. Health Technology Assessment. 2004, 8: iii-72.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Eccles M, Grimshaw J, Walker A, Johnston M, Pitts N: Changing the behavior of healthcare professionals: The use of theory in promoting the uptake of research findings. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005, 58: 107-12. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.09.002.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Eccles M, Steen N, Grimshaw J: Effect of audit and feedback, and reminder messages on primary-care radiology referrals: A randomised trial. Lancet. 2001, 357: 1406-9. 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)04564-5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Grimshaw JM, Shirran L, Thomas R: Changing provider behavior: An overview of systematic reviews of interventions. Med Care. 2001, 39: II2-45. 10.1097/00005650-200108002-00002.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Gollwitzer PM, Sheeran P: Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta-analysis of effects and processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 2006, 38: 69-119. 10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38002-1.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Ajzen I: The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 1991, 50: 179-211. 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Ducharme FM, Davis GM, Noya F, Rich H, Ernst P: The Asthma Quiz for Kidzä: A validated tool for children to appreciate their level of asthma control. Can Resp J. 2004, 11 (8): 541-546.Google Scholar
- Grimshaw J, Eccles M, Campbell M, Elbourne D: Cluster randomized trials of professional and organizational behavior change interventions in health care settings. The Annals of the American Academy. 2005, 599: 71-93. 10.1177/0002716205274576.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.