Clinical practice is not always evidence-based and, therefore, may not optimise patient outcomes. Opinion leaders disseminating and implementing 'best evidence' is one innovative method that holds promise as a strategy to bridge evidence-practice gaps. To assess the effectiveness of the use of local opinion leaders in improving the behaviour of health care professionals and patient outcomes. We searched MEDLINE, Health Star, SIGLE and the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group Trials Register. We did not apply date restrictions to our search strategy. Searches were last updated in February 2005. In addition, we searched reference lists of all potential studies that were identified. Studies eligible for inclusion were randomized controlled trials that used objective measures of performance/provider behaviour and/or patient health outcomes. Two reviewers extracted data from each study and assessed its methodological quality. We calculated the absolute difference in the risk of 'non-compliance' with desired practice, adjusting for baseline levels of non-compliance where these data were available. Twelve studies met our eligibility criteria. The adjusted absolute risk difference of non-compliance with desired practice varied from -6% (favouring control) to +25% (favouring opinion leader intervention). Overall, the median adjusted risk difference (ARD) was 0.10 representing a 10% absolute decrease in non-compliance in the intervention group. The use of local opinion leaders can successfully promote evidence-based practice. However the feasibility of its widespread use remains uncertain.

BETTER (Building on Existing Tools to Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening in Primary Care) is a patient-based intervention to improve chronic disease prevention and screening (CDPS) for cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, and associated lifestyle factors in patients aged 40 to 65. The key component of BETTER is a prevention practitioner (PP), a health care professional with specialized skills in CDPS who meets with patients to develop a personalized prevention prescription, using the BETTER toolkit and Brief Action Planning. The purpose of this qualitative study was to understand facilitators and barriers of the implementation of the BETTER 2 program among clinicians, patients, and stakeholders in three (urban, rural, and remote) primary care settings in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. We collected and analyzed responses from 20 key informant interviews and 5 focus groups, as well as memos and field notes. Data were organized using Nvivo 10 software and coded using constant comparison methods. We then employed the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to focus our analysis on the domains most relevant for program implementation. The following key elements, within the five CFIR domains, were identified as impacting the implementation of BETTER 2: (1) intervention characteristics—complexity and cost of the intervention; (2) outer setting—perception of fit including lack of remuneration, lack of resources, and duplication of services, as well as patients’ needs as perceived by physicians and patients; (3) characteristics of prevention practitioners—interest in prevention and ability to support and motivate patients; (4) inner setting—the availability of a local champion and working in a team versus working as a team; and (5) process—planning and engaging, collaboration, and teamwork. The implementation of a novel CDPS program into new primary care settings is a complex, multi-level process. This study identified key elements that hindered or facilitated the implementation of the BETTER approach in three primary care settings in Newfoundland and Labrador. Employing the CFIR as an overarching typology allows for comparisons with other contexts and settings, and may be useful for practices, researchers, and policy-makers interested in the implementation of CDPS programs.

Legal, ethical, and psychological arguments indicate that patients need to receive information about their health situations before their care decisions are made. Patient decision aids (PtDAs) are designed to help patients make decisions; therefore, they should provide information that results in patients understanding their health situation. We reviewed studies that assessed the impact of PtDAs on patient knowledge and on their feeling of being uninformed.

Background and purpose: Over the past decade, patient engagement (PE) has emerged as an important way to help improve the relevance, quality, and impact of health research. However, there is limited consensus on how best to meaningfully engage patients in the research process. The goal of this article is to share our experiences and insights as members of a Patient Advisory Committee (PAC) on a large, multidisciplinary cancer research study that has spanned six years. We hope by sharing our reflections of the PAC experiences, we can highlight successes, challenges, and lessons learned to help guide PE in future health research. To the best of our knowledge, few publications describing PE experiences in health research teams have been written by patients, survivors, or family caregivers themselves. Methods: A qualitative approach was used to gather reflections from members of the Patient Advisory Committee regarding their experiences in participating in a research study over six years. Each member completed an online survey and engaged in a group discussion based on the emergent themes from the survey responses. Results: Our reflections about experiences as a PAC on a large, pan-Canadian research study include three overarching topics (1) what worked well; (2) areas for improvement; and (3) reflections on our overall contribution and impact. Overall, we found the experience positive and experienced personal satisfaction but there were areas where future improvements could be made. These areas include earlier engagement and training in the research process, more frequent communication between the patient committee and the research team, and on-going monitoring regarding the nature of the patient engagement. Conclusions: Engaging individuals who have experienced the types of events which are the focus of a research study can contribute to the overall relevance of the project. However, intentional efforts are necessary to ensure satisfactory involvement.

For early stage breast cancer, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown that patient decision aids (PtDAs), when used by surgeons, result in increased patient knowledge about options and different patient treatment choices as compared to standard care. Yet, recent data suggests that PtDAs are used by less than 25% of Canadian cancer physicians. We conducted a study to explore breast cancer surgeons’ views on enablers and barriers to the use of PtDAs in their practice. Purposeful sampling was used to select breast cancer surgeons in three Ontario health regions to participate in semi-structured interviews. Inductive coding and the constant comparative method were used to identify the main themes. Twenty-two surgeons (79%) agreed to participate (median age, 50 years; 9 (40%) female). Surgeons practiced in academic (n = 7, 32%) or community (n = 15, 68%) hospitals. Fourteen surgeons were aware of PtDAs, nine had used a PtDA with patients as part of an RCT, and six had developed their own informal PtDA for use in their practice. Enablers of informal PtDA use included surgeon exposure during training and surgeon perceived need for a systematic approach when communicating risks and benefits of surgical treatments with patients. Barriers to formal PtDA use included high surgeon confidence in their verbal communication skills, surgeon belief that patients understood conveyed information, and difficulties embedding such tools in practice routines. Surgeons in this study valued systematic communication with patients. Several surgeons changed their practice to include formal or informal PtDAs provided they perceived there was a clear benefit to themselves or to patients. However, high surgeon confidence in their personal communications skills coupled with beliefs that patients understand conveyed information may be key barriers to PtDA uptake once surgeons have established communication routines.

The objectives of this paper are to describe the planned implementation and evaluation of the Building on Existing Tools to Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening in Primary Care (BETTER 2) program which originated from the BETTER trial. The pragmatic trial, informed by the Chronic Care Model, demonstrated the effectiveness of an approach to Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening (CDPS) involving the use of a new role, the prevention practitioner. The desired goals of the program are improved clinical outcomes, reduction in the burden of chronic disease, and improved sustainability of the health-care system through improved CDPS in primary care. The BETTER 2 program aims to expand the implementation of the intervention used in the original BETTER trial into communities across Canada (Alberta, Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador, the Northwest Territories and Nova Scotia). This proactive approach provides at-risk patients with an intervention from the prevention practitioner, a health-care professional. Using the BETTER toolkit, the prevention practitioner determines which CDPS actions the patient is eligible to receive, and through shared decision-making and motivational interviewing, develops a unique and individualized `prevention prescription’ with the patient. This intervention is 1) personalized; 2) addressing multiple conditions; 3) integrated through linkages to local, regional, or national resources; and 4) longitudinal by assessing patients over time. The BETTER 2 program brings together primary care providers, policy/decision makers and researchers to work towards improving CDPS in primary care. The target patient population is adults aged 40-65. The reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, maintain (RE-AIM) framework will inform the evaluation of the program through qualitative and quantitative methods. A composite index will be used to quantitatively assess the effectiveness of the prevention practitioner intervention. The CDPS actions comprising the composite index include the following: process measures, referral/treatment measures, and target/change outcome measures related to cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer and associated lifestyle factors. The BETTER 2 program is a collaborative approach grounded in practice and built from existing work (i.e., integration not creation). The program evaluation is designed to provide an understanding of issues impacting the implementation of an effective approach for CDPS within primary care that may be adapted to become sustainable in the non-research setting.