Search

This article views social work education as fundamentally a knowledge implementation enterprise. It proposes principles, partnerships, and strategies through which schools can advance evidence-based practice in social work. Such strategies should meet five criteria: They must be deliberate and strategic, they should be knowledge based, they should reflect the complexity of social work practice, they should capitalize on school and agency core activities and resources, and they should build on natural partnerships inherent in professional education. Their savvy and ingenuity in leveraging existing resources may be the key to schools' success in preparing social work professionals for evidence-based practice.

BACKGROUND: Adaptations are often made to evidence-based practices (EBPs) by systems, organizations, and/or service providers in the implementation process. The degree to which core elements of an EBP can be maintained while allowing for local adaptation is unclear. In addition, adaptations may also be needed at the system, policy, or organizational levels to facilitate EBP implementation and sustainment. This paper describes a study of the feasibility and acceptability of an implementation approach, the Dynamic Adaptation Process (DAP), designed to allow for EBP adaptation and system and organizational adaptations in a planned and considered, rather than ad hoc, way. The DAP involves identifying core elements and adaptable characteristics of an EBP, then supporting implementation with specific training on allowable adaptations to the model, fidelity monitoring and support, and identifying the need for and solutions to system and organizational adaptations. In addition, this study addresses a secondary concern, that of improving EBP model fidelity assessment and feedback in real-world settings. METHODS: This project examines the feasibility, acceptability, and utility of the DAP; tests the degree to which fidelity can be maintained using the DAP compared to implementation as usual (IAU); and examines the feasibility of using automated phone or internet-enabled, computer-based technology to assess intervention fidelity and client satisfaction. The study design incorporates mixed methods in order to describe processes and factors associated with variations in both how the DAP itself is implemented and how the DAP impacts fidelity, drift, and adaptation. The DAP model is to be examined by assigning six regions in California (USA) to either the DAP (n=3) or IAU (n=3) to implement an EBP to prevent child neglect. DISCUSSION: The DAP represents a data-informed, collaborative, multiple stakeholder approach to maintain intervention fidelity during the implementation of EBPs in the field by providing support for intervention, system, and organizational adaptation and intervention fidelity to meet local needs. This study is designed to address the real-world implications of EBP implementation in public sector service systems and is relevant for national, state, and local service systems and organizations.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic resistance is a major public health problem. Infections caused by multidrug-resistant bacteria are associated with prolonged hospital stay and death compared with infections caused by susceptible bacteria. Appropriate antibiotic use in hospitals should ensure effective treatment of patients with infection and reduce unnecessary prescriptions. We updated this systematic review to evaluate the impact of interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing to hospital inpatients. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the effectiveness and safety of interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing to hospital inpatients and to investigate the effect of two intervention functions: restriction and enablement. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, and Embase. We searched for additional studies using the bibliographies of included articles and personal files. The last search from which records were evaluated and any studies identified incorporated into the review was January 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies (NRS). We included three non-randomised study designs to measure behavioural and clinical outcomes and analyse variation in the effects: non- randomised trials (NRT), controlled before-after (CBA) studies and interrupted time series (ITS) studies. For this update we also included three additional NRS designs (case control, cohort, and qualitative studies) to identify unintended consequences. Interventions included any professional or structural interventions as defined by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group. We defined restriction as 'using rules to reduce the opportunity to engage in the target behaviour (or increase the target behaviour by reducing the opportunity to engage in competing behaviours)'. We defined enablement as 'increasing means/reducing barriers to increase capability or opportunity'. The main comparison was between intervention and no intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors extracted data and assessed study risk of bias. We performed meta-analysis and meta-regression of RCTs and meta-regression of ITS studies. We classified behaviour change functions for all interventions in the review, including those studies in the previously published versions. We analysed dichotomous data with a risk difference (RD). We assessed certainty of evidence with GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: This review includes 221 studies (58 RCTs, and 163 NRS). Most studies were from North America (96) or Europe (87). The remaining studies were from Asia (19), South America (8), Australia (8), and the East Asia (3). Although 62% of RCTs were at a high risk of bias, the results for the main review outcomes were similar when we restricted the analysis to studies at low risk of bias.More hospital inpatients were treated according to antibiotic prescribing policy with the intervention compared with no intervention based on 29 RCTs of predominantly enablement interventions (RD 15%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 14% to 16%; 23,394 participants; high-certainty evidence). This represents an increase from 43% to 58% .There were high levels of heterogeneity of effect size but the direction consistently favoured intervention.The duration of antibiotic treatment decreased by 1.95 days (95% CI 2.22 to 1.67; 14 RCTs; 3318 participants; high-certainty evidence) from 11.0 days. Information from non-randomised studies showed interventions to be associated with improvement in prescribing according to antibiotic policy in routine clinical practice, with 70% of interventions being hospital-wide compared with 31% for RCTs. The risk of death was similar between intervention and control groups (11% in both arms), indicating that antibiotic use can likely be reduced without adversely affecting mortality (RD 0%, 95% CI -1% to 0%; 28 RCTs; 15,827 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Antibiotic stewardship interventions probably reduce length of stay by 1.12 days (95% CI 0.7 to 1.54 days; 15 RCTs; 3834 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). One RCT and six NRS raised concerns that restrictive interventions may lead to delay in treatment and negative professional culture because of breakdown in communication and trust between infection specialists and clinical teams (low-certainty evidence).Both enablement and restriction were independently associated with increased compliance with antibiotic policies, and enablement enhanced the effect of restrictive interventions (high-certainty evidence). Enabling interventions that included feedback were probably more effective than those that did not (moderate-certainty evidence).There was very low-certainty evidence about the effect of the interventions on reducing Clostridium difficile infections (median -48.6%, interquartile range -80.7% to -19.2%; 7 studies). This was also the case for resistant gram-negative bacteria (median -12.9%, interquartile range -35.3% to 25.2%; 11 studies) and resistant gram-positive bacteria (median -19.3%, interquartile range -50.1% to +23.1%; 9 studies). There was too much variance in microbial outcomes to reliably assess the effect of change in antibiotic use. Heterogeneity of intervention effect on prescribing outcomesWe analysed effect modifiers in 29 RCTs and 91 ITS studies. Enablement and restriction were independently associated with a larger effect size (high-certainty evidence). Feedback was included in 4 (17%) of 23 RCTs and 20 (47%) of 43 ITS studies of enabling interventions and was associated with greater intervention effect. Enablement was included in 13 (45%) of 29 ITS studies with restrictive interventions and enhanced intervention effect. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found high-certainty evidence that interventions are effective in increasing compliance with antibiotic policy and reducing duration of antibiotic treatment. Lower use of antibiotics probably does not increase mortality and likely reduces length of stay. Additional trials comparing antibiotic stewardship with no intervention are unlikely to change our conclusions. Enablement consistently increased the effect of interventions, including those with a restrictive component. Although feedback further increased intervention effect, it was used in only a minority of enabling interventions. Interventions were successful in safely reducing unnecessary antibiotic use in hospitals, despite the fact that the majority did not use the most effective behaviour change techniques. Consequently, effective dissemination of our findings could have considerable health service and policy impact. Future research should instead focus on targeting treatment and assessing other measures of patient safety, assess different stewardship interventions, and explore the barriers and facilitators to implementation. More research is required on unintended consequences of restrictive interventions.

BACKGROUND: Theories are important tools in the social and natural sciences. The methods by which they are derived are rarely described and discussed. Normalization Process Theory explains how new technologies, ways of acting, and ways of working become routinely embedded in everyday practice, and has applications in the study of implementation processes. This paper describes the process by which it was built. METHODS: Between 1998 and 2008, we developed a theory. We derived a set of empirical generalizations from analysis of data collected in qualitative studies of healthcare work and organization. We developed an applied theoretical model through analysis of empirical generalizations. Finally, we built a formal theory through a process of extension and implication analysis of the applied theoretical model. RESULTS: Each phase of theory development showed that the constructs of the theory did not conflict with each other, had explanatory power, and possessed sufficient robustness for formal testing. As the theory developed, its scope expanded from a set of observed regularities in data with procedural explanations, to an applied theoretical model, to a formal middle-range theory. CONCLUSION: Normalization Process Theory has been developed through procedures that were properly sceptical and critical, and which were opened to review at each stage of development. The theory has been shown to merit formal testing.

A series of weaknesses in creativity, research design, and quality of writing continue to handicap energy social science. Many studies ask uninteresting research questions, make only marginal contributions, and lack innovative methods or application to theory. Many studies also have no explicit research design, lack rigor, or suffer from mangled structure and poor quality of writing. To help remedy these shortcomings, this Review offers suggestions for how to construct research questions; thoughtfully engage with concepts; state objectives; and appropriately select research methods. Then, the Review offers suggestions for enhancing theoretical, methodological, and empirical novelty. In terms of rigor, codes of practice are presented across seven method categories: experiments, literature reviews, data collection, data analysis, quantitative energy modeling, qualitative analysis, and case studies. We also recommend that researchers beware of hierarchies of evidence utilized in some disciplines, and that researchers place more emphasis on balance and appropriateness in research design. In terms of style, we offer tips regarding macro and microstructure and analysis, as well as coherent writing. Our hope is that this Review will inspire more interesting, robust, multi-method, comparative, interdisciplinary and impactful research that will accelerate the contribution that energy social science can make to both theory and practice.

Cognitive interviewing has emerged as one of the more prominent methods for identifying and correcting problems with survey questions. We define cognitive interviewing as the administration of draft survey questions while collecting additional verbal information about the survey responses, which is used to evaluate the quality of the response or to help determine whether the question is generating the information that its author intends. But beyond this general categorization, cognitive interviewing potentially includes a variety of activities that may be based on different assumptions about the type of data that are being collected and the role of the interviewer in that process. This synthesis reviews the range of current cognitive interviewing practices, focusing on three considerations: (1) what are the dominant paradigms of cognitive interviewing—what is produced under each, and what are their apparent advantages; (2) what key decisions about cognitive interview study design need to be made once the general approach is selected (e.g., who should be interviewed, how many interviews should be conducted, and how should probes be selected), and what bases exist for making these decisions; and (3) how cognitive interviewing data should be evaluated, and what standards of evidence exist for making questionnaire design decisions based on study findings. In considering these issues, we highlight where standards for best practices are not clearly defined, and suggest broad areas worthy of additional methodological research.

OBJECTIVE: To explore in depth how primary care clinicians (general practitioners and practice nurses) derive their individual and collective healthcare decisions. DESIGN: Ethnographic study using standard methods (non-participant observation, semistructured interviews, and documentary review) over two years to collect data, which were analysed thematically. SETTING: Two general practices, one in the south of England and the other in the north of England. PARTICIPANTS: Nine doctors, three nurses, one phlebotomist, and associated medical staff in one practice provided the initial data; the emerging model was checked for transferability with general practitioners in the second practice. RESULTS: Clinicians rarely accessed and used explicit evidence from research or other sources directly, but relied on "mindlines"--collectively reinforced, internalised, tacit guidelines. These were informed by brief reading but mainly by their own and their colleagues' experience, their interactions with each other and with opinion leaders, patients, and pharmaceutical representatives, and other sources of largely tacit knowledge. Mediated by organisational demands and constraints, mindlines were iteratively negotiated with a variety of key actors, often through a range of informal interactions in fluid "communities of practice," resulting in socially constructed "knowledge in practice." CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the potential advantage of exploiting existing formal and informal networking as a key to conveying evidence to clinicians.

The mission of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality is “to improve the quality, safety, efficiency,and effectiveness of health care for all Americans”. The organization and selected major activities of theAgency are briefly described.

One of the most persistent cleavages in the social sciences is the opposition between two lines of thought conveniently associated with Adam Smith and Emile Durkheim, between homo economicus and homo sociologicus. Of these, the former is supposed to be guided by instrumental rationality, while the behavior of the latter is dictated by social norms. In this paper I characterize this contrast more fully, and discuss attempts by economists to reduce normoriented action to some type of optimizing behavior. Social norms, as I understand them here, are emotional and behavioral propensities of individuals. Are norms rationalizations of self-interest? Are norms followed out of self-interest? Do norms exist to promote self-interest? Do norms exist to promote common interests? Do norms exist to promote genetic fitness?