Journal Article

Strategies to improve the implementation of preventive care in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Wherton, Joseph, Callan, Caitriona, Haasova, Simona, Stevens, Richard, Heath, Laura, Nicholson, Brian D., Gao, Min, Aveyard, Paul

2024

Overview

Background Action on smoking, obesity, excess alcohol, and physical inactivity in primary care is effective and cost-effective, but implementation is low. The aim was to examine the effectiveness of strategies to increase the implementation of preventive healthcare in primary care. Methods CINAHL, CENTRAL, The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Dissertations & Theses – Global, Embase, Europe PMC, MEDLINE and PsycINFO were searched from inception through 5 October 2023 with no date of publication or language limits. Randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies and interrupted time series studies comparing implementation strategies (team changes; changes to the electronic patient registry; facilitated relay of information; continuous quality improvement; clinician education; clinical reminders; financial incentives or multicomponent interventions) to usual care were included. Two reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed bias with an adapted Cochrane risk of bias tool for Effective Practice and Organisation of Care reviews. Meta-analysis was conducted with random-effects models. Narrative synthesis was conducted where meta-analysis was not possible. Outcome measures included process and behavioural outcomes at the closest point to 12 months for each implementation strategy. Results Eighty-five studies were included comprising of 4,210,946 participants from 3713 clusters in 71 cluster trials, 6748 participants in 5 randomised trials, 5,966,552 participants in 8 interrupted time series, and 176,061 participants in 1 controlled before after study. There was evidence that clinical reminders (OR 3.46; 95% CI 1.72–6.96; I 2  = 89.4%), clinician education (OR 1.89; 95% CI 1.46–2.46; I 2  = 80.6%), facilitated relay of information (OR 1.95, 95% CI 1.10–3.46, I 2  = 88.2%), and multicomponent interventions (OR 3.10; 95% CI 1.60–5.99, I 2  = 96.1%) increased processes of care. Multicomponent intervention results were robust to sensitivity analysis. There was no evidence that other implementation strategies affected processes of care or that any of the implementation strategies improved behavioural outcomes. No studies reported on interventions specifically designed for remote consultations. Limitations included high statistical heterogeneity and many studies did not account for clustering. Conclusions Multicomponent interventions may be the most effective implementation strategy. There was no evidence that implementation interventions improved behavioural outcomes. Trial registration PROSPERO CRD42022350912.

• Publisher: BioMed Central,BioMed Central Ltd,Springer Nature B.V,BMC
• Subject: Adults / Alcohol use / Alcoholism / Bias / Biomedicine / Care and treatment / Clinical trials / Clustering / Cost analysis / Diabetes / Diagnosis / Disease prevention / Economic incentives / Education / Effectiveness / Exercise / Finance / Health aspects / Health behavior / Health care / Heterogeneity / Humans / Implementation / Intervention / Medicine / Medicine & Public Health / Medicine, Preventive / Meta-analysis / Methods / Obesity / Patients / Physical activity / Prevention / Preventive health services / Preventive Health Services - methods / Preventive medicine / Primary care / Primary Health Care / Quality control / Relay / Research Article / Risk factors / Sensitivity analysis / Smoking / Smoking cessation / Strategy / Systematic review / Taxonomy / Time series / Weight control