↓ Skip to main content

Elusive search for effective provider interventions: a systematic review of provider interventions to increase adherence to evidence-based treatment for depression

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
22 X users

Readers on

mendeley
127 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Elusive search for effective provider interventions: a systematic review of provider interventions to increase adherence to evidence-based treatment for depression
Published in
Implementation Science, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13012-018-0788-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eric R. Pedersen, Lisa Rubenstein, Ryan Kandrack, Marjorie Danz, Bradley Belsher, Aneesa Motala, Marika Booth, Jody Larkin, Susanne Hempel

Abstract

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. PROSPERO record CRD42017060460 on 3/29/17.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 127 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 127 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 15%
Researcher 13 10%
Student > Postgraduate 13 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 9%
Other 32 25%
Unknown 25 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 29 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 22 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 13%
Social Sciences 11 9%
Computer Science 4 3%
Other 12 9%
Unknown 32 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 August 2018.
All research outputs
#2,797,682
of 24,143,470 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#592
of 1,754 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,445
of 332,619 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#17
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,143,470 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,754 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,619 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.