Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Systematic Reviews 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Protocol

Effect of implementation interventions on nurses’ behaviour in clinical practice: a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression protocol

Authors: Guillaume Fontaine, Sylvie Cossette, Marc-André Maheu-Cadotte, Marie-France Deschênes, Geneviève Rouleau, Andréane Lavallée, Catherine Pépin, Ariane Ballard, Gabrielle Chicoine, Alexandra Lapierre, Patrick Lavoie, Jérémie Blondin, Tanya Mailhot

Published in: Systematic Reviews | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Practitioner-level implementation interventions such as audit and feedback, communities of practice, and local opinion leaders have shown potential to change nurses’ behaviour in clinical practice and improve patients’ health. However, their effectiveness remains unclear. Moreover, we have a paucity of data regarding the use of theory in implementation studies with nurses, the causal processes—i.e. mechanisms of action—targeted by interventions to change nurses’ behaviour in clinical practice, and the constituent components—i.e. behaviour change techniques—included in interventions. Thus, our objectives are threefold: (1) to examine the effectiveness of practitioner-level implementation interventions in changing nurses’ behaviour in clinical practice; (2) to identify, in included studies, the type and degree of theory use, the mechanisms of action targeted by interventions and the behaviour change techniques constituting interventions and (3) to examine whether intervention effectiveness is associated with the use of theory or with specific mechanisms of action and behaviour change techniques.

Methods

We will conduct a systematic review based on the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) Group guidelines. We will search six databases (CINAHL, EMBASE, ERIC, PsycINFO, PubMed and Web of Science) with no time limitation for experimental and quasi-experimental studies that evaluated practitioner-level implementation interventions aiming to change nurses’ behaviour in clinical practice. We will also hand-search reference lists of included studies. We will perform screening, full-text review, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction independently with the Covidence systematic review software. We will assess the quality of evidence using the GRADEpro software. We will code included studies independently for theory use (Theory Coding Scheme), mechanisms of action (coding guidelines from Michie) and behaviour change techniques (Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy v1) with QSR International’s NVivo qualitative data analysis software. Meta-analyses will be performed using the Review Manager (RevMan) software. Meta-regression analyses will be performed with IBM SPSS Statistics software.

Discussion

This review will inform knowledge users and researchers interested in designing, developing and evaluating implementation interventions to support nurses’ behaviour change in clinical practice. Results will provide key insights regarding which causal processes—i.e. mechanisms of action—should be targeted by these interventions, and which constituent components—i.e. behaviour change techniques—should be included in these interventions to increase their effectiveness.

Systematic review registration

The protocol has been registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; registration number: CRD42019130446).
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference World Health Organization. The 2017 update, Global Health Workforce Statistics. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017. World Health Organization. The 2017 update, Global Health Workforce Statistics. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017.
2.
go back to reference World Health Organization. Global strategic directions for strengthening nursing and midwifery 2016–2020. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2016. World Health Organization. Global strategic directions for strengthening nursing and midwifery 2016–2020. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2016.
3.
go back to reference Wuchner SS. Integrative review of implementation strategies for translation of research-based evidence by nurses. Clinical Nurse Specialist. 2014;28(4):214–23.CrossRef Wuchner SS. Integrative review of implementation strategies for translation of research-based evidence by nurses. Clinical Nurse Specialist. 2014;28(4):214–23.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Scott SD, et al. Systematic review of knowledge translation strategies in the allied health professions. Implementation Science. 2012;7(70):1–17. Scott SD, et al. Systematic review of knowledge translation strategies in the allied health professions. Implementation Science. 2012;7(70):1–17.
5.
go back to reference Melnyk BM, et al. The state of evidence-based practice in US nurses: critical implications for nurse leaders and educators. Journal of Nursing Administration. 2012;42(9):410–7.CrossRef Melnyk BM, et al. The state of evidence-based practice in US nurses: critical implications for nurse leaders and educators. Journal of Nursing Administration. 2012;42(9):410–7.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Eccles MP, Mittman BS. Welcome to implementation science. Implementation Science. 2006;1(1):1–3.CrossRef Eccles MP, Mittman BS. Welcome to implementation science. Implementation Science. 2006;1(1):1–3.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Tricco AC, et al. Effectiveness of quality improvement strategies for coordination of care to reduce use of health care services: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Canadian Medical Association Journal. 2014;186(15):E568–78.CrossRef Tricco AC, et al. Effectiveness of quality improvement strategies for coordination of care to reduce use of health care services: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Canadian Medical Association Journal. 2014;186(15):E568–78.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Tricco AC, et al. Effectiveness of quality improvement strategies on the management of diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet. 2012;379(9833):2252–61.CrossRef Tricco AC, et al. Effectiveness of quality improvement strategies on the management of diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet. 2012;379(9833):2252–61.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Ivers, N., et al., Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2012(6): p. Art. No.: CD000259. Ivers, N., et al., Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2012(6): p. Art. No.: CD000259.
10.
go back to reference Forsetlund, L., et al., Continuing education meetings and workshops: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2009(2): p. Art. No.: CD003030. Forsetlund, L., et al., Continuing education meetings and workshops: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2009(2): p. Art. No.: CD003030.
11.
go back to reference Cahill, L.S., et al., Implementation interventions to promote the uptake of evidence-based practices in stroke rehabilitation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2017(3): p. Art. No.: CD012575. Cahill, L.S., et al., Implementation interventions to promote the uptake of evidence-based practices in stroke rehabilitation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2017(3): p. Art. No.: CD012575.
13.
go back to reference Hardeman W, et al. A causal modelling approach to the development of theory-based behaviour change programmes for trial evaluation. Health Education Research. 2005;20(6):676–87.CrossRef Hardeman W, et al. A causal modelling approach to the development of theory-based behaviour change programmes for trial evaluation. Health Education Research. 2005;20(6):676–87.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Michie S, et al. From theory to intervention: mapping theoretically derived behavioural determinants to behaviour change techniques. Applied Psychology. 2008;57(4):660–80.CrossRef Michie S, et al. From theory to intervention: mapping theoretically derived behavioural determinants to behaviour change techniques. Applied Psychology. 2008;57(4):660–80.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Presseau J, et al. Using a behaviour change techniques taxonomy to identify active ingredients within trials of implementation interventions for diabetes care. Implementation Science. 2015;10(55):1–10. Presseau J, et al. Using a behaviour change techniques taxonomy to identify active ingredients within trials of implementation interventions for diabetes care. Implementation Science. 2015;10(55):1–10.
16.
go back to reference Nilsen P. Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implementation Science. 2015;10(1):53.CrossRef Nilsen P. Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implementation Science. 2015;10(1):53.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Michie S, et al. From theory-inspired to theory-based interventions: a protocol for developing and testing a methodology for linking behaviour change techniques to theoretical mechanisms of action. Annals of Behavioral Medicine. 2017;52(6):501–12.CrossRef Michie S, et al. From theory-inspired to theory-based interventions: a protocol for developing and testing a methodology for linking behaviour change techniques to theoretical mechanisms of action. Annals of Behavioral Medicine. 2017;52(6):501–12.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Carey RN, et al. Behavior change techniques and their mechanisms of action: a synthesis of links described in published intervention literature. Annals of Behavioral Medicine. 2019;53(8);693-707. Carey RN, et al. Behavior change techniques and their mechanisms of action: a synthesis of links described in published intervention literature. Annals of Behavioral Medicine. 2019;53(8);693-707.
19.
go back to reference Connell LE, et al. Links between behaviour change techniques and mechanisms of action: an expert consensus study. Annals of Behavioral Medicine. 2019;53(8);708-720.CrossRef Connell LE, et al. Links between behaviour change techniques and mechanisms of action: an expert consensus study. Annals of Behavioral Medicine. 2019;53(8);708-720.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Johnston M, et al. Linking behavior change techniques and mechanisms of action: triangulation of findings from literature synthesis and expert consensus. Annals of Behavioral Medicine. 2018. https://psyarxiv.com/ur6kz/ Johnston M, et al. Linking behavior change techniques and mechanisms of action: triangulation of findings from literature synthesis and expert consensus. Annals of Behavioral Medicine. 2018. https://​psyarxiv.​com/​ur6kz/​
21.
go back to reference Michie S, et al. The behavior change technique taxonomy (v1) of 93 hierarchically clustered techniques: building an international consensus for the reporting of behavior change interventions. Annals of Behavioral Medicine. 2013;46:81–95.CrossRef Michie S, et al. The behavior change technique taxonomy (v1) of 93 hierarchically clustered techniques: building an international consensus for the reporting of behavior change interventions. Annals of Behavioral Medicine. 2013;46:81–95.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Giguère, A., et al., Printed educational materials: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2012(10): p. Art. No.: CD004398. Giguère, A., et al., Printed educational materials: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2012(10): p. Art. No.: CD004398.
23.
go back to reference Flodgren, G., et al., Local opinion leaders: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2011(8): p. Art. No. CD000125. Flodgren, G., et al., Local opinion leaders: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2011(8): p. Art. No. CD000125.
24.
go back to reference Johnson MJ, May CR. Promoting professional behaviour change in healthcare: what interventions work, and why? A theory-led overview of systematic reviews. BMJ Open. 2015;5(9):e008592.CrossRef Johnson MJ, May CR. Promoting professional behaviour change in healthcare: what interventions work, and why? A theory-led overview of systematic reviews. BMJ Open. 2015;5(9):e008592.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Michie S, Prestwich A. Are interventions theory-based? Development of a theory coding scheme. Health Psychology. 2010;29(1):1–8.CrossRef Michie S, Prestwich A. Are interventions theory-based? Development of a theory coding scheme. Health Psychology. 2010;29(1):1–8.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.
28.
go back to reference Moher D, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews. 2015;4(1):1-9. Moher D, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews. 2015;4(1):1-9.
29.
go back to reference Damschroder LJ, et al. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implementation Science. 2009;4(50):1–15. Damschroder LJ, et al. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implementation Science. 2009;4(50):1–15.
30.
go back to reference Veritas Health Innovation Ltd. Covidence [Computer program]. Melbourne: Veritas Health Innovation Ltd; 2019. Veritas Health Innovation Ltd. Covidence [Computer program]. Melbourne: Veritas Health Innovation Ltd; 2019.
31.
go back to reference Liberati A, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Medicine. 2009;6(7):e1000100.CrossRef Liberati A, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Medicine. 2009;6(7):e1000100.CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Garnett C, et al. Reported theory use by digital interventions for hazardous and harmful alcohol consumption, and association with effectiveness: meta-regression. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2018;20(2):e69.CrossRef Garnett C, et al. Reported theory use by digital interventions for hazardous and harmful alcohol consumption, and association with effectiveness: meta-regression. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2018;20(2):e69.CrossRef
34.
go back to reference QSR International Pty Ltd. nVivo [Computer program]. Doncaster: QSR International Pty Ltd; 2019. QSR International Pty Ltd. nVivo [Computer program]. Doncaster: QSR International Pty Ltd; 2019.
35.
go back to reference Byrt T, Bishop J, Carlin JB. Bias, prevalence and kappa. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 1993;46(5):423–9.CrossRef Byrt T, Bishop J, Carlin JB. Bias, prevalence and kappa. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 1993;46(5):423–9.CrossRef
36.
go back to reference Streiner DL, Norman GR, Cairney J, editors. Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015. Streiner DL, Norman GR, Cairney J, editors. Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.
37.
go back to reference Pearson E, et al. Behavior change techniques in health professional training: developing a coding tool. Translational Behavioral Medicine. 2018. Pearson E, et al. Behavior change techniques in health professional training: developing a coding tool. Translational Behavioral Medicine. 2018.
38.
go back to reference Higgins JPT, et al. A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials (RoB 2.0). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2016;10:1-52. Higgins JPT, et al. A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials (RoB 2.0). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2016;10:1-52.
39.
go back to reference Egger M, et al. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Bmj. 1997;315(7109):629–34.CrossRef Egger M, et al. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Bmj. 1997;315(7109):629–34.CrossRef
40.
go back to reference The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager [Computer program]. Copenhagen: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2014. The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager [Computer program]. Copenhagen: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2014.
41.
42.
go back to reference IBM Corporation. IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) [Computer program]. New York City: IBM Corporation; 2017. IBM Corporation. IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) [Computer program]. New York City: IBM Corporation; 2017.
43.
go back to reference Lipsey MW, Wilson DB. Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2001. Lipsey MW, Wilson DB. Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2001.
45.
go back to reference Guyatt G, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction—GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2011;64(4):383–94.CrossRef Guyatt G, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction—GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2011;64(4):383–94.CrossRef
46.
go back to reference GRADE Working Group - McMaster University. GRADEpro 2015 [Computer program]. Halmilton: GRADE Working Group; 2015. GRADE Working Group - McMaster University. GRADEpro 2015 [Computer program]. Halmilton: GRADE Working Group; 2015.
47.
go back to reference Egger M, et al. How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Health Technology Assessment. 2003;7(1):1–76.PubMed Egger M, et al. How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Health Technology Assessment. 2003;7(1):1–76.PubMed
Metadata
Title
Effect of implementation interventions on nurses’ behaviour in clinical practice: a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression protocol
Authors
Guillaume Fontaine
Sylvie Cossette
Marc-André Maheu-Cadotte
Marie-France Deschênes
Geneviève Rouleau
Andréane Lavallée
Catherine Pépin
Ariane Ballard
Gabrielle Chicoine
Alexandra Lapierre
Patrick Lavoie
Jérémie Blondin
Tanya Mailhot
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Systematic Reviews / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 2046-4053
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-1227-x

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

Systematic Reviews 1/2019 Go to the issue