Potential uses of Bayesian networks as tools for synthesis of systematic reviews of complex interventions

Bayesian networks (BNs) are tools for representing expert knowledge or evidence. They are especially useful for synthesising evidence or belief concerning a complex intervention, assessing the sensitivity of outcomes to different situations or contextual frameworks and framing decision problems that involve alternative types of intervention. Bayesian networks are useful extensions to logic maps when initiating a review or to facilitate synthesis and bridge the gap between evidence acquisition and decision-making. Formal elicitation techniques allow development of BNs on the basis of expert opinion. Such applications are useful alternatives to ‘empty’ reviews, which identify knowledge gaps but fail to support decision-making. Where review evidence exists, it can inform the development of a BN. We illustrate the construction of a BN using a motivating example that demonstrates how BNs can ensure coherence, transparently structure the problem addressed by a complex intervention and assess sensitivity to context, all of which are critical components of robust reviews of complex interventions. We suggest that BNs should be utilised to routinely synthesise reviews of complex interventions or empty reviews where decisions must be made despite poor evidence.

Radiation injury is a potentially serious complication to fluoroscopically-guided complex interventions.

Radiation-induced injury to skin is an infrequent but potentially serious complication to complex fluoroscopically-guided interventional procedures. Due to a lack of experience with such injuries, the medical community has found fluoroscopically-induced injuries difficult to diagnose. Injuries have occurred globally in many countries. Serious injuries most frequently occur on the back but have also occurred on the neck, buttocks and anterior of the chest. Severities of injuries range from skin rashes and epilation to necrosis of the skin and its underlying structures. This article reviews the characteristics of these injuries and some actions that can be taken to reduce their likelihood or seriousness.

Adapting low intensity CBT interventions for clients with severe mental illness

Many people with severe mental illness (SMI) such as schizophrenia, whose psychotic symptoms are effectively managed, continue to experience significant functional problems. This chapter argues that low intensity (LI) cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT; e.g. for depression, anxiety, or other issues) is applicable to these clients, and that LI CBT can be consistent with long-term case management. However, adjustments to LI CBT strategies are often necessary and boundaries between LI CBT and high intensity (HI) CBT (with more extensive practitioner contact and complexity) may become blurred. Our focus is on LI CBT's self-management emphasis, its restricted content and segment length, and potential use after limited training. In addition to exploring these issues, it draws on the authors' Collaborative Recovery (CR; Oades et al. 2005) and 'Start Over and Survive' programs (Kavanagh et al. 2004) as examples. ----- ----- Evidence for the effectiveness of LI CBT with severe mental illness is often embedded within multicomponent programs. For example, goal setting and therapeutic homework are common components of such programs, but they can also be used as discrete LI CBT interventions. A review of 40 randomised controlled trials involving recipients with schizophrenia or other sever mental illnesses has identified key components of illness management programs (Mueser et al. 2002). However, it is relatively rare for specific components of these complex interventions to be assessed in isolation. Given these constraints, the evidence for specific LI CBT interventions with severe mental ilnness is relatively limited.

Methodological challenges in conducting a systematic review of community wide interventions to increase physical activity

Introduction: Evaluating the effectiveness of interventions designed to increase the physical activity in communities is often a difficult and complex task, requiring considerable expertise and investment, and often constrained by methodological limitations. These limitations, in turn, create additional challenges when these studies are used in systematic reviews as they hinder the confidence, precision and interpretation of results. The objective of this paper is to summarise the methodological challenges posed in conducting a systematic review of community-wide physical activity interventions to help inform those conducting future primary research and systematic reviews. Methods: We conducted a Cochrane systematic review of community-wide interventions to increase physical activity. We assessed the methodological quality of the included studies. We will investigate these in greater detail, particularly in relation to the potential impact on measures of effect, confidence in results, generalizability of results and general interpretation. Results: The systematic review was conducted and has been published in the Cochrane Library. A logic model was helpful in defining and interpreting the studies. Many studies of unsuitable study design were excluded; however several important methodological limitations of the primary studies evaluating community-wide physical activity interventions emerged. These included: - the failure to use validated tools to measure physical activity; - issues associated with pre and post test designs; - inadequate sampling of populations; - poor control groups; and - intervention and measurement protocols of inadequate duration. Although it is challenging to undertake rigorous evaluations of complex interventions, these issues result in significant uncertainty over the effectiveness of these interventions, and the possible factors required for a community-wide intervention to be successful. In particular, the combination of several of these limitations (e.g. un-validated tools, inadequate sampling, and short duration) is that studies may lack the sensitivity to detect any meaningful change. Multiple publications of findings for the same study also made interpretation difficult; however, interventions with parallel qualitative publications were helpful. Discussion: Evaluating community wide interventions to increase physical activity in a rigorous way is incredibly challenging. These findings reflect these challenges but have important ramifications for researchers conducting primary studies to determine the efficacy of such interventions, as well as for researchers conducting systematic reviews. This new review shows that the inadequacies of design and evaluation are continuing. It is hoped that the adoption of such suggestions may aid in the development of systematic reviews, but more importantly, in enabling translation of such findings into policy and practice.

Do nursing interventions targeting concurrent symptoms hold promise for managing fatigue in patients with advanced cancer?

TO THE EDITOR: It was with great interest that I read two recent articles by de Raaf et al1, and Bruera et al2. These authors are to be congratulated for completing two of the very few high quality randomized trials that evaluate complex interventions for managing fatigue in patients with advanced cancer. de Raaf et al conducted a non-blinded RCT with 152 patients with advanced cancer and reported significant reduction of fatigue in patients who received a nurse-led monitoring and protocol-guided treatment of physical symptoms compared with those who received usual care1. Patients who received this intervention experienced a significant improvement over time in general fatigue, at one-month follow-up and two-month follow-up. Another recent RCT conducted with 141 patients with advanced cancer by Bruera et al2 did not find any benefits of a nursing telephone intervention that involved systematic symptom assessment/management, medication review, psychosocial support and patient education in fatigue reduction, compared to those who received a control telephone intervention conducted by a non-professional...

Evidence-based perspective on CP rehabilitation : Reviews on physiotherapy, physiotherapy-related motor-based interventions and orthotic devices

This thesis utilises an evidence-based approach to critically evaluate and summarize effectiveness research on physiotherapy, physiotherapy-related motor-based interventions and orthotic devices in children and adolescents with cerebral palsy (CP). It aims to assess the methodological challenges of the systematic reviews and trials, to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions in current use, and to make suggestions for future trials Methods: Systematic reviews were searched from computerized bibliographic databases up to August 2007 for physiotherapy and physiotherapy-related interventions, and up to May 2003 for orthotic devices. Two reviewers independently identified, selected, and assessed the quality of the reviews using the Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire complemented with decision rules. From a sample of 14 randomized controlled trials (RCT) published between January 1990 and June 2003 we analysed the methods of sampling, recruitment, and comparability of groups; defined the components of a complex intervention; identified outcome measures based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF); analysed the clinical interpretation of score changes; and analysed trial reporting using a modified 33-item CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) checklist. The effectiveness of physiotherapy and physiotherapy-related interventions in children with diagnosed CP was evaluated in a systematic review of randomised controlled trials that were searched from computerized databases from January 1990 up to February 2007. Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality, extracted the data, classified the outcomes using the ICF, and considered the level of evidence according to van Tulder et al. (2003). Results: We identified 21 reviews on physiotherapy and physiotherapy-related interventions and five on orthotic devices. These reviews summarized 23 or 5 randomised controlled trials and 104 or 27 observational studies, respectively. Only six reviews were of high quality. These found some evidence supporting strength training, constraint-induced movement therapy or hippotherapy, and insufficient evidence on comprehensive interventions. Based on the original studies included in the reviews on orthotic devices we found some short-term effects of lower limb casting on passive range of movement, and of ankle-foot orthoses on equinus walk. Long term effects of lower limb orthoses have not been studied. Evidence of upper limb casting or orthoses is conflicting. In the sample of 14 RCTs, most trials used simple randomisation, complemented with matching or stratification, but only three specified the concealed allocation. Numerous studies provided sufficient details on the components of a complex intervention, but the overlap of outcome measures across studies was poor and the clinical interpretation of observed score changes was mostly missing. Almost half (48%) of the applicable CONSORT-based items (range 28 32) were reported adequately. Most reporting inadequacies were in outcome measures, sample size determination, details of the sequence generation, allocation concealment and implementation of the randomization, success of assessor blinding, recruitment and follow-up dates, intention-to-treat analysis, precision of the effect size, co-interventions, and adverse events. The systematic review identified 22 trials on eight intervention categories. Four trials were of high quality. Moderate evidence of effectiveness was established for upper extremity treatments on attained goals, active supination and developmental status, and of constraint-induced therapy on the amount and quality of hand use and new emerging behaviours. Moderate evidence of ineffectiveness was found for strength training's effect on walking speed and stride length. Conflicting evidence was found for strength training's effect on gross motor function. For the other intervention categories the evidence was limited due to the low methodological quality and the statistically insignificant results of the studies. Conclusions: The high-quality reviews provide both supportive and insufficient evidence on some physiotherapy interventions. The poor quality of most reviews calls for caution, although most reviews drew no conclusions on effectiveness due to the poor quality of the primary studies. A considerable number of RCTs of good to fair methodological and reporting quality indicate that informative and well-reported RCTs on complex interventions in children and adolescents with CP are feasible. Nevertheless, methodological improvement is needed in certain areas of the trial design and performance, and the trial authors are encouraged to follow the CONSORT criteria. Based on RCTs we established moderate evidence for some effectiveness of upper extremity training. Due to limitations in methodological quality and variations in population, interventions and outcomes, mostly limited evidence on the effectiveness of most physiotherapy interventions is available to guide clinical practice. Well-designed trials are needed, especially for focused physiotherapy interventions.

The contribution of qualitative research in designing a complex intervention for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in two different healthcare systems

Background: Developing complex interventions for testing in randomised controlled trials is of increasing importance in healthcare planning. There is a need for careful design of interventions for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD). It has been suggested that integrating qualitative research in the development of a complex intervention may contribute to optimising its design but there is limited evidence of this in practice. This study aims to examine the contribution of qualitative research in developing a complex intervention to improve the provision and uptake of secondary prevention of CHD within primary care in two different healthcare systems.

Methods: In four general practices, one rural and one urban, in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, patients with CHD were purposively selected. Four focus groups with patients (N = 23) and four with staff (N = 29) informed the development of the intervention by exploring how it could be tailored and integrated with current secondary prevention activities for CHD in the two healthcare settings. Following an exploratory trial the acceptability and feasibility of the intervention were discussed in four focus groups (17 patients) and 10 interviews (staff). The data were analysed using thematic analysis.

Results: Integrating qualitative research into the development of the intervention provided depth of information about the varying impact, between the two healthcare systems, of different funding and administrative arrangements, on their provision of secondary prevention and identified similar barriers of time constraints, training needs and poor patient motivation. The findings also highlighted the importance to patients of stress management, the need for which had been underestimated by the researchers. The qualitative evaluation provided depth of detail not found in evaluation questionnaires. It highlighted how the intervention needed to be more practical by minimising administration, integrating role plays into behaviour change training, providing more practical information about stress management and removing self-monitoring of lifestyle change.

Conclusion: Qualitative research is integral to developing the design detail of a complex intervention and tailoring its components to address individuals' needs in different healthcare systems. The findings highlight how qualitative research may be a valuable component of the preparation for complex interventions and their evaluation.

Development of a Complex Intervention for Secondary Prevention of Coronary Heart Disease in Primary Care Using the UK Medical Research Council Framework

Objective: To apply the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) framework for development and evaluation of trials of complex interventions to a primary healthcare intervention to promote secondary prevention of coronary heart disease. Study Design: Case report of intervention development. Methods: First, literature relating to secondary prevention and lifestyle change was reviewed. Second, a preliminary intervention was modeled, based on literature findings and focus group interviews with patients (n = 23) and staff (n = 29) from 4 general practices. Participants’ experiences of and attitudes toward key intervention components were explored. Third, the preliminary intervention was pilot-tested in 4 general practices. After delivery of the pilot intervention, practitioners evaluated the training sessions, and qualitative data relating to experiences of the intervention were collected using semistructured interviews with staff (n = 10) and patient focus groups (n = 17). Results: Literature review identified 3 intervention components: a structured recall system, practitioner training, and patient information. Initial qualitative data identified variations in recall system design, training requirements (medication prescribing, facilitating behavior change), and information appropriate to the prospective study participants. Identifying detailed structures within intervention components clarified how the intervention could be tailored to individual practice, practitioner, and patient needs while preserving the theoretical functions of the components. Findings from the pilot phase informed further modeling of the intervention, reducing administrative time, increasing practical content of training, and omitting unhelpful patient information. Conclusion: Application of the MRC framework helped to determine the feasibility and development of a complex intervention for primary care research.

Monitoring treatment fidelity in a randomised controlled trial of a complex intervention.

Aim. This paper is a report of a study to describe how treatment fidelity is being enhanced and monitored, using a model from the National Institutes of Health Behavior Change Consortium. Background. The objective of treatment fidelity is to minimize errors in interpreting research trial outcomes, and to ascribe those outcomes directly to the intervention at hand. Treatment fidelity procedures are included in trials of complex interventions to account for inferences made from study outcomes. Monitoring treatment fidelity can help improve study design, maximize reliability of results, increase statistical power, determine whether theory-based interventions are responsible for observed changes, and inform the research dissemination process. Methods. Treatment fidelity recommendations from the Behavior Change Consortium were applied to the SPHERE study (Secondary Prevention of Heart DiseasE in GeneRal PracticE), a randomized controlled trial of a complex intervention. Procedures to enhance and monitor intervention implementation included standardizing training sessions, observing intervention consultations, structuring patient recall systems, and using written practice and patient care plans. The research nurse plays an important role in monitoring intervention implementation. Findings. Several methods of applying treatment fidelity procedures to monitoring interventions are possible. The procedure used may be determined by availability of appropriate personnel, fiscal constraints, or time limits. Complex interventions are not straightforward and necessitate a monitoring process at trial stage. Conclusion. The Behavior Change Consortium’s model of treatment fidelity is useful for structuring a system to monitor the implementation of a complex intervention, and helps to increase the reliability and validity of evaluation findings.

Developing the clinical components of a complex intervention for a glaucoma screening trial:a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND: Glaucoma is a leading cause of avoidable blindness worldwide. Open angle glaucoma is the most common type of glaucoma. No randomised controlled trials have been conducted evaluating the effectiveness of glaucoma screening for reducing sight loss. It is unclear what the most appropriate intervention to be evaluated in any glaucoma screening trial would be. The purpose of this study was to develop the clinical components of an intervention for evaluation in a glaucoma (open angle) screening trial that would be feasible and acceptable in a UK eye-care service.

METHODS: A mixed-methods study, based on the Medical Research Council (MRC) framework for complex interventions, integrating qualitative (semi-structured interviews with 46 UK eye-care providers, policy makers and health service commissioners), and quantitative (economic modelling) methods. Interview data were synthesised and used to revise the screening interventions compared within an existing economic model.

RESULTS: The qualitative data indicated broad based support for a glaucoma screening trial to take place in primary care, using ophthalmic trained technical assistants supported by optometry input. The precise location should be tailored to local circumstances. There was variability in opinion around the choice of screening test and target population. Integrating the interview findings with cost-effectiveness criteria reduced 189 potential components to a two test intervention including either optic nerve photography or screening mode perimetry (a measure of visual field sensitivity) with or without tonometry (a measure of intraocular pressure). It would be more cost-effective, and thus acceptable in a policy context, to target screening for open angle glaucoma to those at highest risk but for both practicality and equity arguments the optimal strategy was screening a general population cohort beginning at age forty.

CONCLUSIONS: Interventions for screening for open angle glaucoma that would be feasible from a service delivery perspective were identified. Integration within an economic modelling framework explicitly highlighted the trade-off between cost-effectiveness, feasibility and equity. This study exemplifies the MRC recommendation to integrate qualitative and quantitative methods in developing complex interventions. The next step in the development pathway should encompass the views of service users.

Behavioural Interventions for Severe Obesity Before and/or After Bariatric Surgery : a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

We would like to thank the following study authors for providing additional data and clarifications: Alison Fielding, Haldis Lier, Monica Nijamkin, Jane Ogden, Anastasios Papalazarou, Manish Parikh, Brian Swenson, Andresa Triffoni, Jean Michel Oppert, Marie-France Langlois, David Sarwer and Dale Bond. We also thank Dr. Kevin Deans and the staff at the bariatric surgery clinic at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary. The Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, is funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health Directorates. The views expressed are those of the authors.

Behavioural Interventions for Severe Obesity Before and/or After Bariatric Surgery : a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

We would like to thank the following study authors for providing additional data and clarifications: Alison Fielding, Haldis Lier, Monica Nijamkin, Jane Ogden, Anastasios Papalazarou, Manish Parikh, Brian Swenson, Andresa Triffoni, Jean Michel Oppert, Marie-France Langlois, David Sarwer and Dale Bond. We also thank Dr. Kevin Deans and the staff at the bariatric surgery clinic at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary. The Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, is funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health Directorates. The views expressed are those of the authors.

A participatory framework for researching and evaluating communication for development and social change

The growing dominance of project planning cycles and results-based management in development over the past 20 years has significant implications for the effective evaluation of communication for development and social change and the sustainability of these processes. These approaches to development and evaluation usually give priority to the linear, logical framework (or log frame) approach promoted by many development institutions. This tends to emphasize upward accountability approaches to development and its evaluation, so that development is driven by exogenous rather than endogenous models of development and social change. Such approaches are underpinned by ideas of preplanning, and predetermination of what successful out -comes look like. In this way, outcomes of complex interventions tend to be reduced to simple, cause-effect processes and the categorization of things, including people (Chambers and Pettit 2004; Eyben 2011). This runs counter to communication for development approaches, which prioritize engagement, relationships, empowerment and dialogue as important components for positive social change.