Behavioural approaches to knowledge translation Jeremy Grimshaw MD, PhD Clinical Epidemiology Program, OHRI Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa Canada Research Chair in Health Knowledge Transfer and Uptake
Personal background • Trained as family doctor in UK • PhD in health services research • Developed implementation research program in UK • Moved to Canada in 2002
Personal background • Focus has been on: • professional and organizational behavior change. • improving technical aspects of care ie how do we ensure patients get the right (evidence based) treatments at the right time. • populations of physicians and health care organizations.
Background Why do we need to think about knowledge translation? • Consistent evidence of failure to translate research findings into clinical practice • 30-40% patients do not get treatments of proven effectiveness • 20–25% patients get care that is not needed or potentially harmful Schuster, McGlynn, Brook (1998). Milbank Memorial Quarterly Grol R (2001). Med Care
Potential barriers to knowledge translation • Structural (e.g. financial disincentives) • Organisational (e.g. inappropriate skill mix, lack of facilities or equipment) • Peer group (e.g. local standards of care not in line with desired practice) • Professional (e.g. knowledge, attitudes, skills) • Limitations of human information processing • Immediate clinical environment
Knowledge to action cycle
Knowledge to Action loop From: Graham ID et al. Lost in Knowledge Translation: Time for a Map? Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 2006
Approaches to knowledge translation
ISLAGIAT T principle
Martin P Eccles
‘It Seemed Like A Good Idea At The Time’
Behavioural perspective on Knowledge Translation • KT depends on behaviour • Citizens, health professionals, managers, policy makers, commissioners • To improve KT need to change behaviour • To change behaviour, helps to understand how behaviour changes • Alternative is “trial and error” • Substantial body of empirical and theoretical insights from behavioural and organisational sciences
Identifying behaviours of interest • What is the behavior (or series of linked behaviors) that you are trying to change? • Who performs the behavior(s)? (potential adopter) • When and where does the potential adopter perform the behavior? • Are there obvious practical barriers to performing the behavior? • Is the behavior usually performed in stressful circumstances? (potential for acts of omission)
Assessing barriers to KT • Formal assessment of context, likely barriers to KT • Mixed methods • Literature review • Informal consultation • Focus groups • Surveys • Needs interdisciplinary perspective
Assessing barriers to KT Why use theory? • Interventions are likely to be more effective if they target determinants of behaviour • Theoretical frameworks facilitate accumulation and integration of evidence • across context, population and behaviour • of effects and of causal mechanisms • Allows refinement and development of theory and, hence, more effective interventions
Assessing barriers to KT
Assessing barriers to KT Determinants of behaviour • Knowledge • Skills • Social/professional role and identity • Beliefs about capabilities • Beliefs about consequences • Motivation and goals • Memory, attention and decision processes • Environmental context and resources • Social influences • Emotion • Behavioural regulation • Nature of the behaviours
Michie (2005) Quality and Safety in Health Care
Assessing barriers to KT
Assessing barriers to KT IMPLEMENT • Focus groups, theoretical approach • Ongoing cluster RCT to develop and evaluate intervention to improve GP management of low back pain (↓ diagnostic imaging, ↑ exercise) • Conducted focus group with 42 general practitioners • Focus group analysis based upon the “BPS domains”
Assessing barriers to KT Skills
Knowledge
Environmental context and resources
Beliefs about capabilities Professional role and identity
Beliefs about consequences
Social influences
Motivation and goals
Emotion
Behavioural regulation
Nature of the behaviours
Memory and decision processes
Michie (2005). Journal of Quality and Safety in Health Care.
Designing KT interventions • Methods of designing programs • Empirical • Intervention mapping • Commonsense • Theory informed
Designing KT interventions
Designing interventions
Designing KT interventions • Choice of dissemination and implementation should be based upon: • ‘Diagnostic’ assessment of barriers • Understanding of mechanism of action of interventions • Empirical evidence about effects of interventions • Available resources • Practicalities, logistics etc
Designing KT interventions Theory / Mediators
Modes of Delivery
Behaviour Change Techniques
Designing KT interventions Modes of delivery • Educational materials • Educational meetings • Educational outreach • Audit and feedback • Opinion leaders • Mass media • Reminders • Tailored interventions • Multifaceted • Organisational
Designing KT interventions Behaviour change techniques • Provide information about behavior- health link. • Provide information on consequences • Provide information about others’ approval • Prompt intention formation • Prompt barrier identification • Provide general encouragement • • • • •
Set graded tasks Provide instruction Model/ demonstrate the behavior Prompt specific goal setting Prompt review of behavioral goals
•
Prompt self-monitoring of behavior
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Provide feedback on performance Provide contingent rewards Teach to use prompts/ cues Agree behavioral contract Prompt practice Use follow up prompts Provide opportunities for Social comparison Plan social support/ social change Prompt identification as role model Prompt self talk Relapse prevention Stress management Motivational interviewing Time management
Designing KT interventions
Technique for behaviour change
Social/ Professional role & identity
Knowledge
Skills
Beliefs about capabilities
Beliefs about consequences
Motivati on and goals
Memory, attention, decision processes
Goal/target specified:
1
2 1
3 2 3
1
3 1
3 3 3 3
1 1
Monitoring
1
2
3 3 3
1 2 2
1 2 2
1 2 2
1 2 2
2 3 3
3 3 2 3
3 2 2 2
1 3 2 1
2 23
1
1
1 1
2 3 1 2
2
Self-monitoring
Environme ntal context and resources 1
2
Social influen
1
1 2
Contract
2 1
Rewards;
1 2 1
1
3 3 3
2 1
2 1 2
2 3 3 3
1 1 2
1
1 2
Graded task,
1
1
3 3 2
2 2 3
2
2 3 2 2
1 2
1
1
Increasing skills:
1 2
3 3 3 3
2 2 3 2
1
2 3 2
1 2
1
Stress management
1
1 2
1 1 1
1
1 2 1
1 2 1
1
Coping skills
1
2/3 3 1
2 2 2
1
1
1 1
1 1
Rehearsal of relevant skills
1
3 3 3 3
2 3 2
2 1
2 1
agree use; agree don’t use; disagreement;
3 2
Designing KT programs – IMPLEMENT example • What we are trying to change? • Knowledge of what red flags are and skills in how to identify them and diagnose acute low back pain • Why are we trying to change it? • Construct: Knowledge (GP) • How are we going to change it? • Technique: Information provision • Context: educational meeting; advertising campaign • Content: Behavioural task with feedback; eg in pairs run through the process; quiz?; practise use of an algorithm
Designing KT programs – IMPLEMENT example •
What we are trying to change? • Skills and beliefs about capabilities related to giving advice to stay active (inc what advice to give) • Why are we trying to change it? • Construct: Skills, Knowledge (GP), Beliefs about capabilities • How are we going to change it? • Technique: behavioural rehearsal; role play; scripting • Context: educational meeting; advertising campaign • Content: Participants write down wording of their last or usual message to stay active and then discuss in groups of 2-4 and create a script they feel comfortable with. Then role play with feedback. Educators model if necessary. Idea is that GPs should feel comfortable with wording of their own script, compared with a generic script, so that it is in their own language and consistent with the way they speak, behave, etc
Designing KT programs – IMPLEMENT example Intervention Method of delivery • Two small group educational meetings • Homework • Educational materials
Session One. Confidence in Diagnosis
Session 1
Section Title
Behaviour change techniques delivered
Content
Welcome and Introductions
- Information provision
Group introductions; Agenda and content for session
Small group work No.1: Discussion of presession reflective activity about xray
- Prompt barrier identification - Persuasive communication - Provide information on consequences - Provide opportunities for social comparison
- Discussion in small groups (3-4) and fed back to larger group about implementing the key message about x-ray use - Facilitator recorded barriers and enablers and revisited throughout session
Guideline recommendations
- Information provision - Persuasive communication
- Didactic presentation from facilitator with group discussion - Introduction to acute non-specific LBP; Guideline development and stakeholders; Overview of guideline key messages
Small group No.2: Making recommendations behaviourally specific
- Prompt barrier identification
- Participants reworded x-ray key message from guideline - by who, applying to who, what, where, when
Revisit small group discussions No.1 and No.2
- Persuasive communication
- All group discussion. Facilitator challenged negative beliefs using persuasive communication and reinforce relevance of key message to GPs and LBP patients
Plain film x-ray for acute LBP
- Provide information on consequences - Persuasive communication
- Didactic presentation from radiologist, outlining potential harms and non-utility of x-ray for LBP
Red flag screening
- Model/demonstrate the behaviour
- Peer expert took clinical history of simulated patient demonstrating red flag screening and resisting pressure from patient to order an x-ray
Small group No.3: Red flag screening practical
- Prompt practice (rehearsal) - Provide information on consequences - Persuasive communication
- Participants took clinical history of trained simulated patients who are demanding a x-ray - Group discussion including feedback from simulated patients
Summary
- Prompt barrier identification - Persuasive communication - Provide opportunities for social comparison
- Group discussion - reflect on barriers on whiteboard - Questions; outstanding issues
Summary • Professional behaviour is a key proximal determinant of knowledge translation • Using a behavioural perspective to KT highlights substantial empirical and theoretical insights (and practical tools) from behavioural and organisational disciplines • Use of behavioural and organisational theory to assess barriers to KT and design KT interventions potentially increases transparency around hypothesised mechanism of action and logic model of interventions
Contact details • Jeremy Grimshaw - jgrimshaw@ohri.ca • EPOC – epoc@uottawa.ca • Rx for Change database of appraised reviews of professional behaviour change www.rxforchange.ca • KT Canada - http://ktclearinghouse.ca/ktcanada