Purpose: We aimed to provide a critical review of measurement properties of mHealth technologies used for stroke survivors to measure the amount and intensity of functional skills, and to identify facilitators and barriers toward adoption in research and clinical practice. Materials and methods: Using Arksey and O'Malley's framework, two independent reviewers determined eligibility and performed data extraction. We conducted an online consultation survey exercise with 37 experts. Results: Sixty-four out of 1380 studies were included. A majority reported on lower limb behavior (n = 32), primarily step count (n = 21). Seventeen studies reported on arm-hand behaviors. Twenty-two studies reported metrics of intensity, 10 reported on energy expenditure. Reliability and validity were the most frequently reported properties, both for commercial and non-commercial devices. Facilitators and barriers included: resource costs, technical aspects, perceived usability, and ecological legitimacy. Two additional categories emerged from the survey: safety and knowledge, attitude, and clinical skill. Conclusions: This provides an initial foundation for a field experiencing rapid growth, new opportunities and the promise that mHealth technologies affords for envisioning a better future for stroke survivors. We synthesized findings into a set of recommendations for clinicians and clinician-scientists about how best to choose mHealth technologies for one's individual objective.Implications for RehabilitationRehabilitation professionals are encouraged to consider the measurement properties of those technologies that are used to monitor functional locomotor and object-interaction skills in the stroke survivors they serve.Multi-modal knowledge translation strategies (research synthesis, educational courses or videos, mentorship from experts, etc.) are available to rehabilitation professionals to improve knowledge, attitude, and skills pertaining to mHealth technologies.Consider the selection of commercially available devices that are proven to be valid, reliable, accurate, and responsive to the targeted clinical population.Consider usability and privacy, confidentiality and safety when choosing a specific device or smartphone application.

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.

OBJECTIVES:To systematically document the implementation, components, comparators, adherence, and effectiveness of published fall prevention approaches in U.S. acute care hospitals.DESIGN:Systematic review. Studies were identified through existing reviews, searching five electronic databases, screening reference lists, and contacting topic experts for studies published through August 2011.SETTING:U.S. acute care hospitals.PARTICIPANTS:Studies reporting in-hospital falls for intervention groups and concurrent (e.g., controlled trials) or historic comparators (e.g., before-after studies).INTERVENTION:Fall prevention interventions.MEASUREMENTS:Incidence rate ratios (IRR, ratio of fall rate postintervention or treatment group to the fall rate preintervention or control group) and ratings of study details.RESULTS:Fifty-nine studies met inclusion criteria. Implementation strategies were sparsely documented (17% not at all) and included staff education, establishing committees, seeking leadership support, and occasionally continuous quality improvement techniques. Most interventions (81%) included multiple components (e.g., risk assessments (often not validated), visual risk alerts, patient education, care rounds, bed-exit alarms, and postfall evaluations). Fifty-four percent did not report on fall prevention measures applied in the comparison group, and 39% neither reported fidelity data nor described adherence strategies such as regular audits and feedback to ensure completion of care processes. Only 45% of concurrent and 15% of historic control studies reported sufficient data to compare fall rates. The pooled postintervention incidence rate ratio (IRR) was 0.77 (95% confidence interval = 0.52-1.12, P = .17; eight studies; I(2) : 94%). Meta-regressions showed no systematic association between implementation intensity, intervention complexity, comparator information, or adherence levels and IRR.CONCLUSION:Promising approaches exist, but better reporting of outcomes, implementation, adherence, intervention components, and comparison group information is necessary to establish evidence on how hospitals can successfully prevent falls.

BACKGROUND: Whether collaborative care models that enable interactive communication (timely, 2-way exchange of pertinent clinical information directly between primary care and specialist physicians) improve patient outcomes is uncertain. PURPOSE: To assess the effects of interactive communication between collaborating primary care physicians and key specialists on outcomes for patients receiving ambulatory care. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, PsycInfo, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and Web of Science through June 2008 and secondary references, with no language restriction. STUDY SELECTION: Studies that evaluated the effects of interactive communication between collaborating primary care physicians and specialists on outcomes for patients with diabetes, psychiatric conditions, or cancer. DATA EXTRACTION: Contextual, intervention, and outcome data from 23 studies were extracted by one reviewer and checked by another. Study quality was assessed with a 13-item checklist. Disagreement was resolved by consensus. Main outcomes for analysis were selected by reviewers who were blinded to study results. DATA SYNTHESIS: Meta-analysis indicated consistent effects across 11 randomized mental health studies (pooled effect size, -0.41 [95% CI, -0.73 to -0.10]), 7 nonrandomized mental health studies (pooled effect size, -0.47 [CI, -0.84 to -0.09]), and 5 nonrandomized diabetes studies (pooled effect size, -0.64 [CI, -0.93 to -0.34]). These findings remained robust to sensitivity analyses. Meta-regression indicated studies that included interventions to enhance the quality of information exchange had larger effects on patient outcomes than those that did not (-0.84 vs. -0.27; P = 0.002). LIMITATIONS: Because collaborative interventions were inherently multifaceted, the efficacy of interactive communication by itself cannot be established. Inclusion of study designs with lower internal validity increased risk for bias. No studies involved oncologists. CONCLUSION: Consistent and clinically important effects suggest a potential role of interactive communication for improving the effectiveness of primary care-specialist collaboration. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: RAND Health's Comprehensive Assessment of Reform Options Initiative, the Veterans Affairs Center for the Study of Provider Behavior, The Commonwealth Fund, and the Health Foundation.

Aim. This paper is a report of a scoping review to systematically identify and collate the evidence on psychosocial interventions for non-professional carers of people with Parkinson's disease.Background. Carers are critical to people with Parkinson's disease maintaining independent living and quality of life. Parkinson's disease imposes a challenging constellation of symptoms and no summary of effective interventions for carers and their unique support needs exists.Data sources. Thirty electronic databases were searched from their inception to July 2006, and bibliographies and specific internet sites were scanned.Methods. Eligible studies were categorized according to design, type of economic evaluation where applicable, number of participants, country of evaluation, intervention, orientation, provider, setting, method of delivery, carer population, patient population, carer outcomes, patient outcomes and authors' conclusions. Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by another reviewer; discrepancies were resolved through discussion or arbitration by a third reviewer.Findings. Thirty studies met the inclusion criteria. Most investigated relatively unique interventions involving multiple elements; the majority were not aimed primarily at carers but were embedded in patient treatment programmes. Many were pilot studies, employing weak research designs and involving very small numbers of participants and most were not designed to assess the clinical or cost effectiveness of the intervention for the carers.Conclusion. Several interventions merit further investigation but there is currently little evidence to show which approaches are effective and cost effective in supporting carers. Future studies need to employ appropriate and rigorous research designs with adequate samples and outcome measures, and with more focus on the carer.

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.