Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1
Flowchart of identification of relevant studies.
- Figure 2
Effect of practice facilitation vs control in random-effects meta-analysis sorted from low to high methodological performance and effect size (N = 23).
- Figure 3
Publication bias funnel plot with observed (N = 23) and imputed studies.
- Figure 4
Number of practices per facilitator and effect size (n = 21).
- Figure 5
Intensity of intervention and effect size (N = 23).
Tables
- Table 1
Research Design Characteristics of Studies with High Methodological Performance Scores (N = 23)
Author, Year Scorea Trial Characteristics Outcome Measure Months Follow-up (% Retention) Effect Size SMD (SE) 95% CI Kottke et al,63 1992 6 Design: CCT
Allocation concealed: N
Blindedb: Y
Intent to treat: YMean percentage of patients advised to quit 19 (83) 1.01 (0.52) 0.00 to 2.02c McBride et al,67 2000 6 Design: RCT
Allocation concealed: N
Blindedb: N
Intent to treat: NPercentage of records with CVD screening 18 (100) 0.82 (0.46) –0.08 to 1.72 Stange et al,48 2003 6 Design: RCT
Allocation concealed: N
Blindedb: N
Intent to treat: NMean rate of preventive service 24 (NR) 0.59 (0.23) 0.13- to 1.05c Lobo et al,57 2004 6 Design: RCT
Allocation concealed: Y
Blindedb: N
Intent to treat: NMean health-related quality of life 21 (57) 0.44 (0.18) 0.09 to 0.79c Roetzhiem et al,34 2005 6 Design: C-RCT
Allocation concealed: N
Blindedb: Y
Intent to treat: NMean number of CA-screening tests 24 (100) 0.84 (0.29) 0.27 to 1.41c Hogg et al,78 2008 6 Design: CCT
Allocation concealed: N
Blindedb: N
Intent to treat: YMean preventive performance index 6 (87) 0.73 (0.29) 0.16 to 1.30c Aspy et al,82 2008 6 Design: CCT
Allocation concealed: N
Blindedb: Y
Intent to treat: NPercent given physical inactivity brief intervention 18 (89) 1.12 (0.36) 0.42 to 1.82c Jaén et al,85 2010 6 Design: RCT
Allocation concealed: N
Blindedb: Y
Intent to treat: NMean prevention service score 26 (86) 0.04 (0.37) –0.69 to 0.77 Cockburn et al,70 1992 7 Design: RCT
Allocation concealed: N
Blindedb: N
Intent to treat: NMean number of cessation cards used 3 (79) 0.24 (0.15) –0.06 to 0.54 Modell et al,55 1998 7 Design: RCT
Allocation concealed: N
Blindedb: N
Intent to treat: NMedian number of hemoglobin tests 12 (100) 0.32 (0.40) –0.45 to 1.09 Engels et al,80 2006 7 Design: RCT
Allocation concealed: Y
Blindedb: N
Intent to treat: YMean number of projects initiated 12 (92) 1.04 (0.32) 0.41 to 1.67c Aspy et al,83 2008 7 Design: RCT
Allocation concealed: N
Blindedb: Y
Intent to treat: NMean percent with MMG 9 (100) 1.31 (0.57) 0.20 to 2.42c Deitrich et al,59 1992 18 Design: RCT
Allocation concealed: N
Blindedb: Y
Intent to treat: NMean rate of prevention service 12 (96) 0.59 (0.29) 0.02 to 1.16c Lobo et al,57 2002 8 Design: RCT
Allocation concealed: Y
Blindedb: N
Intent to treat: YMean number of adherence items 21 (100) 0.66 (0.19) 0.30 to 1.02c Bryce et al,47 1995 9 Design: RCT
Allocation concealed: Y
Blindedb: Y
Intent to treat: YPercentage of consults initiated for asthma 12 (93.3) 0.62 (0.31) 0.02 to 1.22c Kinsinger et al,56 1998 9 Design: RCT
Allocation concealed: Y
Blindedb: Y
Intent to treat: NPercentage of patients with CBE and MMG 18 (94) 0.47 (0.27) –0.05 to 0.99 Solberg et al,69 1998 9 Design: RCT
Allocation concealed: Y
Blindedb: N
Intent to treat: YMean number of preventive systems processes 22 (100) 1.08 (0.32) 0.45 to 1.71c Lemelin et al17 2001 9 Design: RCT
Allocation concealed: Y
Blindedb: Y
Intent to treat: NMean preventive performance index 18 (98) 0.98 (0.32) 0.36 to 1.60c Frijling et al,35 2002 9 Design: C-RCT
Allocation concealed: Y
Blindedb: Y
Intent to treat: YPercentage giving eye examination 21 (95) 0.26 (0.18) –0.09 to 0.61 Frijling et al,65 2003 9 Design: C-RCT
Allocation concealed: Y
Blindedb: Y
Intent to treat: YPercentage assessing hypertension risk 21 (95) 0.39 (0.18) 0.04 to 0.74c Margolis et al,58 2004 10 Design: RCT
Allocation concealed: Y
Blindedb: Y
Intent to treat: YMean percentage given preventive service 30 (100) 0.60 (0.31) 0.00 to 1.20c Mold et al,81 2008 10 Design: RCT
Allocation concealed: Y
Blindedb: Y
Intent to treat: YPercentage implementing processes 6 (100) 0.94 (0.53) –0.10 to 1.98 Hogg et al,79 2008 12 Design: RCT
Allocation concealed: Y
Blindedb: Y
Intent to treat: YMean preventive performance index 13 (100) 0.11 (0.27) –0.42 to 0.64 -
CA = cancer; CBE = clinical breast examination; CCT = controlled clinical trial; C-RCT = cluster randomized-controlled trial; CVD = cardiovascular disease; MMG = mammography; N = no (not reported); RCT = randomized controlled trial; SE = standard error; SMD = standardized mean difference; Y = yes (reported).
-
↵a Scored on a scale from 0 to 12, in which the higher the score, the higher the quality of the study methods.
-
↵b Single- or double-blind study.
-
↵c P <.05; z statistic.
-
Supplemental Tables
Supplemental Table 1. Excluded Studies With Low Methodological Performance Scores (n = 21); Supplemental Table 2. Intervention Characteristics of Studies With High Methodological Performance Scores (N = 23)
Files in this Data Supplement:
- Supplemental data: Table - PDF file, 3 pages, 135 KB
- Supplemental data: Table - PDF file, 3 pages, 127 KB
The Article in Brief
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Practice Facilitation Within Primary Care Settings
N. Bruce Baskerville , and colleagues
Background Practice facilitation is a multifaceted approach in which skilled individuals help others address the challenges in implementing evidence-based care guidelines in the primary care setting. As the United States attempts to redesign medical practice, practice facilitation increasingly is used to assist with needed practice changes. This study, a systematic review of the existing literature, examines the overall effect of practice facilitation.
What This Study Found Practice facilitation has a robust effect on the adoption of evidence-based guidelines in primary care. The systematic review, which includes 23 studies representing nearly 1,400 primary care practices, finds that practices are 2.76 times more likely to adopt evidence-based guidelines with practice facilitation than without. Tailoring the intensity of the intervention to the needs of the practice and the number of practices per facilitator has an impact on the effectiveness of the facilitation.
Implications
- The authors call for large-scale collaborative, practice-based evaluation research to understand the impact of facilitation on the adoption of guidelines, the relationship between context and the components of facilitation, sustainability, and costs to the health system.
Jump to section
Related Articles
Cited By...
- Successful Trial of Practice Facilitation for Plan, Do, Study, Act Quality Improvement
- Place Matters: Closing the Gap on Rural Primary Care Quality Improvement Capacity--the Healthy Hearts Northwest Study
- Improving Smoking and Blood Pressure Outcomes: The Interplay Between Operational Changes and Local Context
- A Taxonomy for External Support for Practice Transformation
- Protocol for a Feasibility study incorporating a Randomised Pilot Trial with an Embedded Process Evaluation and Feasibility Economic Analysis of ThinkCancer!: A primary care intervention to expedite cancer diagnosis in Wales
- Implementation of Community-Based Resource Referrals for Cardiovascular Disease Self-Management
- Practice Transformation Support and Patient Engagement to Improve Cardiovascular Care: From EvidenceNOW Southwest (ENSW)
- Identifying Practice Facilitation Delays and Barriers in Primary Care Quality Improvement
- Adapting Diabetes Shared Medical Appointments to Fit Context for Practice-Based Research (PBR)
- Dedicated Workforce Required to Support Large-Scale Practice Improvement
- Sustaining effective quality improvement: building capacity for resilience in the practice facilitator workforce
- Qualitative evaluation of a cardiovascular quality improvement programmereveals sizable data inaccuracies in small primary care practices
- Clinician Perspectives on the Benefits of Practice Facilitation for Small Primary Care Practices
- A Randomized Trial of External Practice Support to Improve Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Primary Care
- Primary Care Practices' Implementation of Patient-Team Partnership: Findings from EvidenceNOW Southwest
- A Cluster Randomized Trial Comparing Strategies for Translating Self-Management Support into Primary Care Practices
- Quality circles for quality improvement in primary health care: their effectiveness, gaps of knowledge, origins and significance - a scoping review
- The iPROMOS protocol: a stepped-wedge study to implement routine patient-reported outcomes in a medical oncology outpatient setting
- Development of an intervention to expedite cancer diagnosis through primary care: a protocol
- Practice Facilitator Strategies for Addressing Electronic Health Record Data Challenges for Quality Improvement: EvidenceNOW
- Practice Facilitators and Leaders Perspectives on a Facilitated Quality Improvement Program
- Use of Quality Improvement Strategies Among Small to Medium-Size US Primary Care Practices
- Finding a Parsimonious Path for Primary Care Practice Transformation
- Prospective, Cluster-Randomized Trial to Implement the Ottawa Model for Smoking Cessation in Diabetes Education Programs in Ontario, Canada
- Guidelines for Adolescent Depression in Primary Care (GLAD-PC): Part I. Practice Preparation, Identification, Assessment, and Initial Management
- Experiences of practice facilitators working on the Improved Delivery of Cardiovascular Care project: Retrospective case study
- Visites medicales preventives periodiques : une meilleure prestation des services de prevention: Par le Groupe detude canadien sur les soins de sante preventifs
- Periodic preventive health visits: a more appropriate approach to delivering preventive services: From the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care
- Building managed primary care practice networks to deliver better clinical care: a qualitative semi-structured interview study
- A Randomized Trial of High-Value Change Using Practice Facilitation
- Facilitation roles and characteristics associated with research use by healthcare professionals: a scoping review
- Meaningful Use in Chronic Care: Improved Diabetes Outcomes Using a Primary Care Extension Center Model
- A Practice Facilitation and Academic Detailing Intervention Can Improve Cancer Screening Rates in Primary Care Safety Net Clinics
- Solo and Small Practices: A Vital, Diverse Part of Primary Care
- Achieving change in primary care--effectiveness of strategies for improving implementation of complex interventions: systematic review of reviews
- Implementing guidelines to routinely prevent chronic vascular disease in primary care: the Preventive Evidence into Practice cluster randomised controlled trial
- Strategies to Support the Integration of Behavioral Health and Primary Care: What Have We Learned Thus Far?
- Reduction in self-monitoring of blood glucose in type 2 diabetes: an observational controlled study in east London
- Practice-Tailored Facilitation to Improve Pediatric Preventive Care Delivery: A Randomized Trial
- Improving cardiovascular disease using managed networks in general practice: an observational study in inner London
- Implementing Asthma Guidelines Using Practice Facilitation and Local Learning Collaboratives: A Randomized Controlled Trial
- Improving anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation: observational study in three primary care trusts
- Practice Facilitation to Improve Diabetes Care in Primary Care: A Report From the EPIC Randomized Clinical Trial
- The Future of Family Medicine Version 2.0: Reflections from Pisacano Scholars
- Advanced Primary Care in San Antonio: Linking Practice and Community Strategies to Improve Health
- Effects of Facilitated Team Meetings and Learning Collaboratives on Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates in Primary Care Practices: A Cluster Randomized Trial
- Cost Estimates for Operating a Primary Care Practice Facilitation Program
- The Primary Care Extension Program: A Catalyst for Change
- Enhancing the Primary Care Team to Provide Redesigned Care: The Roles of Practice Facilitators and Care Managers
- A collaborative project to improve identification and management of patients with chronic kidney disease in a primary care setting in Greater Manchester
- Navigating Change: How Outreach Facilitators Can Help Clinicians Improve Patient Outcomes
- In This Issue: Challenges of Managing Multimorbidity