改变卫生工作者临床行为的社会规范干预:系统回顾和荟萃分析

S. Cotterill, M. Y. Tang, R. Powell, E. Howarth, L. McGowan, Jane Roberts, B. Brown, S. Rhodes
{"title":"改变卫生工作者临床行为的社会规范干预:系统回顾和荟萃分析","authors":"S. Cotterill, M. Y. Tang, R. Powell, E. Howarth, L. McGowan, Jane Roberts, B. Brown, S. Rhodes","doi":"10.3310/hsdr08410","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n A social norms intervention seeks to change the clinical behaviour of a target health worker by exposing them to the values, beliefs, attitudes or behaviours of a reference group or person. These low-cost interventions can be used to encourage health workers to follow recommended professional practice.\n \n \n \n To summarise evidence on whether or not social norms interventions are effective in encouraging health worker behaviour change, and to identify the most effective social norms interventions.\n \n \n \n A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.\n \n \n \n The following databases were searched on 24 July 2018: Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to week 2 July 2018), EMBASE (1974 to 3 July 2018), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (1937 to July 2018), British Nursing Index (2008 to July 2018), ISI Web of Science (1900 to present), PsycINFO (1806 to week 3 July 2018) and Cochrane trials (up to July 2018).\n \n \n \n Health workers took part in the study.\n \n \n \n Behaviour change interventions based on social norms.\n \n \n \n Health worker clinical behaviour, for example prescribing (primary outcome), and patient health outcomes, for example blood test results (secondary), converted into a standardised mean difference.\n \n \n \n Titles and abstracts were reviewed against the inclusion criteria to exclude any that were clearly ineligible. Two reviewers independently screened the remaining full texts to identify relevant papers. Two reviewers extracted data independently, coded for behaviour change techniques and assessed quality using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. We performed a meta-analysis and presented forest plots, stratified by behaviour change technique. Sources of variation were explored using metaregression and network meta-analysis.\n \n \n \n A total of 4428 abstracts were screened, 477 full texts were screened and findings were based on 106 studies. Most studies were in primary care or hospitals, targeting prescribing, ordering of tests and communication with patients. The interventions included social comparison (in which information is given on how peers behave) and credible source (which refers to communication from a well-respected person in support of the behaviour). Combined data suggested that interventions that included social norms components were associated with an improvement in health worker behaviour of 0.08 standardised mean differences (95% confidence interval 0.07 to 0.10 standardised mean differences) (n = 100 comparisons), and an improvement in patient outcomes of 0.17 standardised mean differences (95% confidence interval 0.14 to 0.20) (n = 14), on average. Heterogeneity was high, with an overall I\n 2 of 85.4% (primary) and 91.5% (secondary). Network meta-analysis suggested that three types of social norms intervention were most effective, on average, compared with control: credible source (0.30 standardised mean differences, 95% confidence interval 0.13 to 0.47); social comparison combined with social reward (0.39 standardised mean differences, 95% confidence interval 0.15 to 0.64); and social comparison combined with prompts and cues (0.33 standardised mean differences, 95% confidence interval 0.22 to 0.44).\n \n \n \n The large number of studies prevented us from requesting additional information from authors. The trials varied in design, context and setting, and we combined different types of outcome to provide an overall summary of evidence, resulting in a very heterogeneous review.\n \n \n \n Social norms interventions are an effective method of changing clinical behaviour in a variety of health service contexts. Although the overall result was modest and very variable, there is the potential for social norms interventions to be scaled up to target the behaviour of a large population of health workers and resulting patient outcomes.\n \n \n \n Development of optimised credible source and social comparison behaviour change interventions, including qualitative research on acceptability and feasibility.\n \n \n \n This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016045718.\n \n \n \n This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 41. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.\n","PeriodicalId":12880,"journal":{"name":"Health Services and Delivery Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Social norms interventions to change clinical behaviour in health workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"S. Cotterill, M. Y. Tang, R. Powell, E. Howarth, L. McGowan, Jane Roberts, B. Brown, S. Rhodes\",\"doi\":\"10.3310/hsdr08410\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n \\n A social norms intervention seeks to change the clinical behaviour of a target health worker by exposing them to the values, beliefs, attitudes or behaviours of a reference group or person. These low-cost interventions can be used to encourage health workers to follow recommended professional practice.\\n \\n \\n \\n To summarise evidence on whether or not social norms interventions are effective in encouraging health worker behaviour change, and to identify the most effective social norms interventions.\\n \\n \\n \\n A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.\\n \\n \\n \\n The following databases were searched on 24 July 2018: Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to week 2 July 2018), EMBASE (1974 to 3 July 2018), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (1937 to July 2018), British Nursing Index (2008 to July 2018), ISI Web of Science (1900 to present), PsycINFO (1806 to week 3 July 2018) and Cochrane trials (up to July 2018).\\n \\n \\n \\n Health workers took part in the study.\\n \\n \\n \\n Behaviour change interventions based on social norms.\\n \\n \\n \\n Health worker clinical behaviour, for example prescribing (primary outcome), and patient health outcomes, for example blood test results (secondary), converted into a standardised mean difference.\\n \\n \\n \\n Titles and abstracts were reviewed against the inclusion criteria to exclude any that were clearly ineligible. Two reviewers independently screened the remaining full texts to identify relevant papers. Two reviewers extracted data independently, coded for behaviour change techniques and assessed quality using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. We performed a meta-analysis and presented forest plots, stratified by behaviour change technique. Sources of variation were explored using metaregression and network meta-analysis.\\n \\n \\n \\n A total of 4428 abstracts were screened, 477 full texts were screened and findings were based on 106 studies. Most studies were in primary care or hospitals, targeting prescribing, ordering of tests and communication with patients. The interventions included social comparison (in which information is given on how peers behave) and credible source (which refers to communication from a well-respected person in support of the behaviour). Combined data suggested that interventions that included social norms components were associated with an improvement in health worker behaviour of 0.08 standardised mean differences (95% confidence interval 0.07 to 0.10 standardised mean differences) (n = 100 comparisons), and an improvement in patient outcomes of 0.17 standardised mean differences (95% confidence interval 0.14 to 0.20) (n = 14), on average. Heterogeneity was high, with an overall I\\n 2 of 85.4% (primary) and 91.5% (secondary). Network meta-analysis suggested that three types of social norms intervention were most effective, on average, compared with control: credible source (0.30 standardised mean differences, 95% confidence interval 0.13 to 0.47); social comparison combined with social reward (0.39 standardised mean differences, 95% confidence interval 0.15 to 0.64); and social comparison combined with prompts and cues (0.33 standardised mean differences, 95% confidence interval 0.22 to 0.44).\\n \\n \\n \\n The large number of studies prevented us from requesting additional information from authors. The trials varied in design, context and setting, and we combined different types of outcome to provide an overall summary of evidence, resulting in a very heterogeneous review.\\n \\n \\n \\n Social norms interventions are an effective method of changing clinical behaviour in a variety of health service contexts. Although the overall result was modest and very variable, there is the potential for social norms interventions to be scaled up to target the behaviour of a large population of health workers and resulting patient outcomes.\\n \\n \\n \\n Development of optimised credible source and social comparison behaviour change interventions, including qualitative research on acceptability and feasibility.\\n \\n \\n \\n This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016045718.\\n \\n \\n \\n This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 41. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":12880,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Services and Delivery Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Services and Delivery Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr08410\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Services and Delivery Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr08410","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

社会规范干预旨在通过让目标卫生工作者接触参考群体或个人的价值观、信仰、态度或行为来改变他们的临床行为。这些低成本干预措施可用于鼓励卫生工作者遵循推荐的专业实践。总结社会规范干预措施在鼓励卫生工作者行为改变方面是否有效的证据,并确定最有效的社会规范干预。随机对照试验的系统综述和荟萃分析。2018年7月24日检索了以下数据库:Ovid MEDLINE(1946年至2018年7日第2周)、EMBASE(1974年至2018月3日)、护理和相关健康文献累积指数(1937年至2018 7月)、英国护理指数(2008年至2018七月)、ISI Web of Science(1900年至今)、PsycINFO(1806年至2018年月3周)和Cochrane试验(截至2018年七月)。卫生工作者参与了这项研究。基于社会规范的行为改变干预措施。卫生工作者的临床行为,例如处方(主要结果)和患者健康结果,例如血液检测结果(次要结果),转换为标准化平均差。根据纳入标准对标题和摘要进行审查,以排除任何明显不合格的标题和摘要。两名评审员对剩下的全文进行了独立筛选,以确定相关论文。两名评审员独立提取数据,对行为改变技术进行编码,并使用Cochrane偏倚风险工具评估质量。我们进行了一项荟萃分析,并提出了通过行为改变技术分层的森林图。使用元回归和网络荟萃分析来探索变异的来源。共筛选了4428篇摘要,筛选了477篇全文,研究结果基于106项研究。大多数研究都是在初级保健或医院进行的,针对处方、测试顺序和与患者的沟通。干预措施包括社会比较(提供同龄人行为的信息)和可信来源(指受人尊敬的人为支持行为而进行的沟通)。综合数据表明,包括社会规范成分的干预措施与卫生工作者行为的改善有关,其标准化平均差异为0.08(95%置信区间0.07至0.10标准化平均差)(n = 100次比较),患者结果改善0.17标准化平均差异(95%置信区间0.14至0.20)(n = 14) ,平均而言。异质性高,总I2为85.4%(原发性)和91.5%(继发性)。网络荟萃分析表明,与对照组相比,三种类型的社会规范干预平均最有效:可信来源(0.30标准化平均差,95%置信区间0.13-0.47);社会比较与社会奖励相结合(0.39标准化平均差,95%置信区间0.15至0.64);以及与提示和线索相结合的社会比较(0.33标准化平均差,95%置信区间0.22至0.44)。大量研究使我们无法向作者索取更多信息。试验在设计、背景和环境方面各不相同,我们将不同类型的结果结合起来,提供了证据的总体总结,从而形成了一个非常异质的审查。社会规范干预是在各种卫生服务环境中改变临床行为的有效方法。尽管总体结果是适度的,而且变化很大,但有可能扩大社会规范干预,以针对大量卫生工作者的行为和由此产生的患者结果。制定优化的可信来源和社会比较行为改变干预措施,包括对可接受性和可行性的定性研究。本研究注册为PROSPERO CRD42016045718。该项目由国家卫生研究所(NIHR)卫生服务和分娩研究计划资助,并将在《卫生服务和交付研究》上全文发表;第8卷第41期。参见NIHR期刊图书馆网站 了解更多项目信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Social norms interventions to change clinical behaviour in health workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis
A social norms intervention seeks to change the clinical behaviour of a target health worker by exposing them to the values, beliefs, attitudes or behaviours of a reference group or person. These low-cost interventions can be used to encourage health workers to follow recommended professional practice. To summarise evidence on whether or not social norms interventions are effective in encouraging health worker behaviour change, and to identify the most effective social norms interventions. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. The following databases were searched on 24 July 2018: Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to week 2 July 2018), EMBASE (1974 to 3 July 2018), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (1937 to July 2018), British Nursing Index (2008 to July 2018), ISI Web of Science (1900 to present), PsycINFO (1806 to week 3 July 2018) and Cochrane trials (up to July 2018). Health workers took part in the study. Behaviour change interventions based on social norms. Health worker clinical behaviour, for example prescribing (primary outcome), and patient health outcomes, for example blood test results (secondary), converted into a standardised mean difference. Titles and abstracts were reviewed against the inclusion criteria to exclude any that were clearly ineligible. Two reviewers independently screened the remaining full texts to identify relevant papers. Two reviewers extracted data independently, coded for behaviour change techniques and assessed quality using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. We performed a meta-analysis and presented forest plots, stratified by behaviour change technique. Sources of variation were explored using metaregression and network meta-analysis. A total of 4428 abstracts were screened, 477 full texts were screened and findings were based on 106 studies. Most studies were in primary care or hospitals, targeting prescribing, ordering of tests and communication with patients. The interventions included social comparison (in which information is given on how peers behave) and credible source (which refers to communication from a well-respected person in support of the behaviour). Combined data suggested that interventions that included social norms components were associated with an improvement in health worker behaviour of 0.08 standardised mean differences (95% confidence interval 0.07 to 0.10 standardised mean differences) (n = 100 comparisons), and an improvement in patient outcomes of 0.17 standardised mean differences (95% confidence interval 0.14 to 0.20) (n = 14), on average. Heterogeneity was high, with an overall I 2 of 85.4% (primary) and 91.5% (secondary). Network meta-analysis suggested that three types of social norms intervention were most effective, on average, compared with control: credible source (0.30 standardised mean differences, 95% confidence interval 0.13 to 0.47); social comparison combined with social reward (0.39 standardised mean differences, 95% confidence interval 0.15 to 0.64); and social comparison combined with prompts and cues (0.33 standardised mean differences, 95% confidence interval 0.22 to 0.44). The large number of studies prevented us from requesting additional information from authors. The trials varied in design, context and setting, and we combined different types of outcome to provide an overall summary of evidence, resulting in a very heterogeneous review. Social norms interventions are an effective method of changing clinical behaviour in a variety of health service contexts. Although the overall result was modest and very variable, there is the potential for social norms interventions to be scaled up to target the behaviour of a large population of health workers and resulting patient outcomes. Development of optimised credible source and social comparison behaviour change interventions, including qualitative research on acceptability and feasibility. This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016045718. This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 41. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
审稿时长
53 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信