Use of routine healthcare data in randomised implementation trials: a methodological mixed-methods systematic review

Implementation Science

Systematic Review

Hilary Pinnock¹  Elizabeth Ingram²  Lixin Sun³  Anna De Simoni⁴  Charis Xuan Xie⁴  Clare Relton⁴  Sandra Eldridge⁴ 

[1] Asthma UK Centre for Applied Research, Usher Institute, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK;Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, England, UK;School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England, UK;Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, England, UK;

关键词: Routine healthcare data;    Implementation science;    Trials;    Review;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s13012-023-01300-4

 received in 2023-01-27, accepted in 2023-09-05,  发布年份 2023

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundRoutine data are increasingly used in randomised controlled trials evaluating healthcare interventions. They can aid participant identification, outcome assessment, and intervention delivery. Randomised implementation trials evaluate the effect of implementation strategies on implementation outcomes. Implementation strategies, such as reminders, are used to increase the uptake of evidence-based interventions into practice, while implementation outcomes, such as adoption, are key measures of the implementation process. The use of routine data in effectiveness trials has been explored; however, there are no reviews on implementation trials. We therefore aimed to describe how routine data have been used in randomised implementation trials and the design characteristics of these trials.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE (Ovid) and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from Jan 2000 to Dec 2021 and manually searched protocols from trial registers. We included implementation trials and type II and type III hybrid effectiveness-implementation trials conducted using routine data. We extracted quantitative and qualitative data and narratively synthesised findings.ResultsFrom 4206 titles, we included 80 trials, of which 22.5% targeted implementation of evidence-based clinical guidelines. Multicomponent implementation strategies were more commonly evaluated (70.0%) than single strategies. Most trials assessed adoption as the primary outcome (65.0%). The majority of trials extracted data from electronic health records (EHRs) (62.5%), and 91.3% used routine data for outcome ascertainment. Reported reasons for using routine data were increasing efficiency, assessing outcomes, reducing research burden, improving quality of care, identifying study samples, confirming findings, and assessing representativeness. Data quality, the EHR system, research governance, and external factors such as government policy could act either as facilitators or barriers.ConclusionsAdherence to guidance on designing and reporting implementation studies, and specifically to harmonise the language used in describing implementation strategies and implementation outcomes, would aid identification of studies and data extraction. Routine healthcare data are widely used for participant identification, outcome assessment and intervention delivery. Researchers should familiarise themselves with the barriers and facilitators to using routine data, and efforts could be made to improve data quality to overcome some of the barriers.RegistrationPROSPERO CRD42022292321.

【 授权许可】

CC BY   
© BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2023

【 图 表 】

12951_2015_155_Article_IEq76.gif

Fig. 6

Fig. 2

Fig. 5

Fig. 2