BACKGROUND: The Veterans Health Administration (VA) serves Veterans in the nation's largest integrated healthcare system. VA seeks to provide high quality of healthcare to Veterans, but due to the VA Choice and MISSION Acts, VA increasingly pays for care outside of its system in the community. This systematic review compares care provided in VA and non-VA settings, and includes published studies from 2015 to 2023, updating 2 prior systematic reviews on this topic. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and PsychINFO from 2015 to 2023 for published literature comparing VA and non-VA care, including VA-paid community care. Records were included at the abstract or full-text level if they compared VA medical care with care provided in other healthcare systems, and included clinical quality, safety, access, patient experience, efficiency (cost), or equity outcomes. Data from included studies was abstracted by two independent reviewers, with disagreements resolved by consensus. Results were synthesized narratively and via graphical evidence maps. RESULTS: Thirty-seven studies were included after screening 2415 titles. Twelve studies compared VA and VA-paid community care. Most studies assessed clinical quality and safety, and studies of access were second most common. Only six studies assessed patient experience and six assessed cost or efficiency. Clinical quality and safety of VA care was better than or equal to non-VA care in most studies. Patient experience in VA care was better than or equal to experience in non-VA care in all studies, but access and cost/efficiency outcomes were mixed. DISCUSSION: VA care is consistently as good as or better than non-VA care in terms of clinical quality and safety. Access, cost/efficiency, and patient experience between the two systems are not well studied. Further research is needed on these outcomes and on services widely used by Veterans in VA-paid community care, like physical medicine and rehabilitation.

Depression is a common mental health disorder for which clinical practice guidelines have been developed. Prior systematic reviews have identified complex organizational interventions, such as collaborative care, as effective for guideline implementation; yet, many healthcare delivery organizations are interested in less resource-intensive methods to increase provider adherence to guidelines and guideline-concordant practices. The objective of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness of healthcare provider interventions that aim to increase adherence to evidence-based treatment of depression in routine clinical practice.,We searched five databases through August 2017 using a comprehensive search strategy to identify English-language randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the quality improvement, implementation science, and behavior change literature that evaluated outpatient provider interventions, in the absence of practice redesign efforts, to increase adherence to treatment guidelines or guideline-concordant practices for depression. We used meta-analysis to summarize odds ratios, standardized mean differences, and incidence rate ratios, and assessed quality of evidence (QoE) using the GRADE approach.,Twenty-two RCTs promoting adherence to clinical practice guidelines or guideline-concordant practices met inclusion criteria. Studies evaluated diverse provider interventions, including distributing guidelines to providers, education/training such as academic detailing, and combinations of education with other components such as targeting implementation barriers. Results were heterogeneous and analyses comparing provider interventions with usual clinical practice did not indicate a statistically significant difference in guideline adherence across studies. There was some evidence that provider interventions improved individual outcomes such as medication prescribing and indirect comparisons indicated more complex provider interventions may be associated with more favorable outcomes. We did not identify types of provider interventions that were consistently associated with improvements across indicators of adherence and across studies. Effects on patients' health in these RCTs were inconsistent across studies and outcomes.,Existing RCTs describe a range of provider interventions to increase adherence to depression guidelines. Low QoE and lack of replication of specific intervention strategies across studies limited conclusions that can be drawn from the existing research. Continued efforts are needed to identify successful strategies to maximize the impact of provider interventions on increasing adherence to evidence-based treatment for depression.

The objective of this systematic review was to synthesize the effectiveness of health care provider interventions that aim to increase the uptake of evidence-based treatment of depression in routine clinical practice. This report summarizes results of comprehensive searches in the quality improvement, implementation science, and behavior change literature. Studies evaluated diverse provider interventions such as sending out depression guidelines to providers, education and training such as academic detailing, and combinations of education with other components such as targeting implementation barriers. A detailed critical appraisal process assessed risk of bias and study quality. The body of evidence was graded using established evidence synthesis criteria. Twenty-two randomized controlled trials promoting uptake of clinical practice guidelines and guideline-concordant practices met inclusion criteria. Results were heterogeneous and analyses comparing interventions with usual clinical practice did not indicate a statistically significant difference in guideline adherence across studies. There was some evidence that interventions improved individual outcomes such as medication prescribing and indirect comparisons indicated that more complex interventions may be associated with more favorable outcomes. However, we did not identify types of interventions that were consistently associated with improvements across indicators of guideline adherence and across studies. Due to the small number of studies reporting team interventions or approaches tested in specialty care we did not identify robust evidence that effects vary by provider group or setting. Low quality of evidence and lack of replication of specific intervention strategies limited conclusions that can be drawn from the existing research.

PURPOSE: Patient-reported data are playing an increasing role in health care. In oncology, data from quality of life (QoL) assessment tools may be particularly important for those with limited survival prospects, where treatments aim to prolong survival while maintaining or improving QoL. This paper examines the use and impact of using QoL measures on health care of cancer patients within a clinical setting, particularly those with brain cancer. It also examines facilitators and challenges, and provides implications for policy and practice. DESIGN: We conducted a systematic literature review, 15 expert interviews and a consultation at an international summit. RESULTS: The systematic review found no relevant intervention studies specifically in brain cancer patients, and after expanding our search to include other cancers, 15 relevant studies were identified. The evidence on the effectiveness of using QoL tools was inconsistent for patient management, but somewhat more consistent in favour of improving patient-physician communication. Interviews identified unharnessed potential and growing interest in QoL tool use and associated challenges to address. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that the use of QoL tools in cancer patients may improve patient-physician communication and have the potential to improve care, but the tools are not currently widely used in clinical practice (in brain cancer nor some other cancer contexts) although they are in clinical trials. There is a need for further research and stakeholder engagement on how QoL tools can achieve most impact across cancer and patient contexts. There is also a need for policy, health professional, research and patient communities to strengthen information exchange and debate, support awareness raising and provide training on tool design, use and interpretation

BACKGROUND: Depression is a common mental health disorder for which clinical practice guidelines have been developed. Prior systematic reviews have identified complex organizational interventions, such as collaborative care, as effective for guideline implementation; yet, many healthcare delivery organizations are interested in less resource-intensive methods to increase provider adherence to guidelines and guideline-concordant practices. The objective of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness of healthcare provider interventions that aim to increase adherence to evidence-based treatment of depression in routine clinical practice. METHODS: We searched five databases through August 2017 using a comprehensive search strategy to identify English-language randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the quality improvement, implementation science, and behavior change literature that evaluated outpatient provider interventions, in the absence of practice redesign efforts, to increase adherence to treatment guidelines or guideline-concordant practices for depression. We used meta-analysis to summarize odds ratios, standardized mean differences, and incidence rate ratios, and assessed quality of evidence (QoE) using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Twenty-two RCTs promoting adherence to clinical practice guidelines or guideline-concordant practices met inclusion criteria. Studies evaluated diverse provider interventions, including distributing guidelines to providers, education/training such as academic detailing, and combinations of education with other components such as targeting implementation barriers. Results were heterogeneous and analyses comparing provider interventions with usual clinical practice did not indicate a statistically significant difference in guideline adherence across studies. There was some evidence that provider interventions improved individual outcomes such as medication prescribing and indirect comparisons indicated more complex provider interventions may be associated with more favorable outcomes. We did not identify types of provider interventions that were consistently associated with improvements across indicators of adherence and across studies. Effects on patients' health in these RCTs were inconsistent across studies and outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Existing RCTs describe a range of provider interventions to increase adherence to depression guidelines. Low QoE and lack of replication of specific intervention strategies across studies limited conclusions that can be drawn from the existing research. Continued efforts are needed to identify successful strategies to maximize the impact of provider interventions on increasing adherence to evidence-based treatment for depression.