BackgroundWhile an extensive array of existing evidence-based practices (EBPs) have the potential to improve patient outcomes, little is known about how to implement EBPs on a larger scale. Therefore, we sought to identify effective strategies for scaling up EBPs in primary care.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review with the following inclusion criteria: (i) study design: randomized and non-randomized controlled trials, before-and-after (with/without control), and interrupted time series; (ii) participants: primary care-related units (e.g., clinical sites, patients); (iii) intervention: any strategy used to scale up an EBP; (iv) comparator: no restrictions; and (v) outcomes: no restrictions. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library from database inception to August 2016 and consulted clinical trial registries and gray literature. Two reviewers independently selected eligible studies, then extracted and analyzed data following the Cochrane methodology. We extracted components of scaling-up strategies and classified them into five categories: infrastructure, policy/regulation, financial, human resources-related, and patient involvement. We extracted scaling-up process outcomes, such as coverage, and provider/patient outcomes. We validated data extraction with study authors.ResultsWe included 14 studies. They were published since 2003 and primarily conducted in low-/middle-income countries (n = 11). Most were funded by governmental organizations (n = 8). The clinical area most represented was infectious diseases (HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria, n = 8), followed by newborn/child care (n = 4), depression (n = 1), and preventing seniors’ falls (n = 1). Study designs were mostly before-and-after (without control, n = 8). The most frequently targeted unit of scaling up was the clinical site (n = 11). The component of a scaling-up strategy most frequently mentioned was human resource-related (n = 12). All studies reported patient/provider outcomes. Three studies reported scaling-up coverage, but no study quantitatively reported achieving a coverage of 80% in combination with a favorable impact.ConclusionsWe found few studies assessing strategies for scaling up EBPs in primary care settings. It is uncertain whether any strategies were effective as most studies focused more on patient/provider outcomes and less on scaling-up process outcomes. Minimal consensus on the metrics of scaling up are needed for assessing the scaling up of EBPs in primary care.Trial registrationThis review is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016041461.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-017-0672-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Strategies to improve the implementation of workplace-based policies or practices targeting tobacco, alcohol, diet, physical activity and obesity.

Policy-makers worldwide are increasingly interested in scaling up evidence-based interventions (EBIs) to larger populations, and implementation scientists are developing frameworks and methodologies for achieving this. But scaling-up does not always produce the desired results. Why not? We aimed to enhance awareness of the various pitfalls to be anticipated when planning scale-up. In lower-and middle-income countries (LMICs), the scale-up of health programs to prevent or respond to outbreaks of communicable diseases has been occurring for many decades. In high-income countries, there is new interest in the scaling up of interventions that address communicable and non-communicable diseases alike. We scanned the literature worldwide on problems encountered when implementing scale-up plans revealed a number of potential pitfalls that we discuss in this paper. We identified and discussed the following six major pitfalls of scaling-up EBIs: 1) the cost-effectiveness estimation pitfall, i.e. accurate cost-effectiveness estimates about real-world implementation are almost impossible, making predictions of economies of scale unreliable; 2) the health inequities pitfall, i.e. some people will necessarily be left out and therefore not benefit from the scaled-up EBIs; 3) the scaled-up harm pitfall, i.e. the harms as well as the benefits may be amplified by the scaling-up; 4) the ethical pitfall, i.e. informed consent may be a challenge on a grander scale; 5) the top-down pitfall, i.e. the needs, preferences and culture of end-users may be forgotten when scale-up is directed from above; and 6) the contextual pitfall, i.e. it may not be possible to adapt the EBIs to every context. If its pitfalls are addressed head on, scaling-up may be a powerful process for translating research data into practical improvements in healthcare in both LMICs and high-income countries, ensuring that more people benefit from EBIs.

Introduction A discussion about sexuality should become a routine part of the personalized care pathway for patients with cancer. Aim To assess rates of patient discussion about sexuality with health care providers after cancer. Methods We used data from the representative French nationwide 2012 VICAN survey, which included 4,349 adults 18 to 82 years old who were still alive 2 years after diagnosis at 12 cancer sites. Main Outcome Measures Self-reported rates of discussion about sexuality with health care providers were assessed, and associated factors were tested after systematic adjustment for a sexual health indicator (created from six items of the Relationship and Sexuality Scale). Results Of 4,181 respondents to the question on a discussion about sexuality, 54.7% reported that nobody had proposed a discussion to them, 21.9% did not want any discussion, and 23.4% had had a discussion. Women had less discussion about sexuality with health care providers (11.1% vs 36.7% of men, P < .001) and were more likely to request a discussion at their own initiative (62.9% vs 48.0% of men, P < .001). Discussion about sexuality was more frequent with patients with prostate (56.3%) and cervical (39.6%) cancer, but increasing age was associated with a greater reluctance to discuss this issue (odds ratio = 1.17, 95% CI = 1.04–1.2). The likelihood of discussion increased with severe sexual problems, radiotherapy, general sequelae, having an information-seeker profile, previous professional psychological help, and initial treatment in private centers. Patients initially wishing for psychological help were more likely to desire a discussion about sexuality. Conclusion Sexuality receives little attention in French patients with cancer. Inequalities in the discussion about sexuality were observed in relation to the type of care center where the patient was initially managed. Information on supportive interventions, including more systematic referral for professional psychological help, should be developed to facilitate discussion and should be offered to all patients, irrespective of severity of sexual problems, age, sex, cancer site, and care center.

Background: In 2013, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research funded 12 community-based primary health care research teams to develop evidence-based innovations. We aimed to explore the scalability of these innovations. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, we invited the 12 teams to rate their evidence-based innovations for scalability. Based on a systematic review, we developed a self-administered questionnaire with 16 scalability assessment criteria grouped into 5 dimensions (theory, impact, coverage, setting and cost). Teams completed a questionnaire for each of their innovations. We analyzed the data using simple frequency counts and hierarchical cluster analysis. We calculated the mean number and standard deviation (SD) of innovations that met criteria within each dimension that included more than 1 criterion. The analysis unit was the innovation. Results: The 11 responding teams evaluated 33 evidence-based innovations (median 3, range 1-8 per team). The innovations focused on access to care and chronic disease prevention and management, and varied from health interventions to methodological innovations. Most of the innovations were health interventions (n = 21), followed by analytical methods (n = 4), conceptual frameworks (n = 4), measures (n = 3) and strategies to build research capacity (n = 1). Most (29) met criteria in the theory dimension, followed by impact (mean 22.3 [SD 5.6] innovations per dimension), setting (mean 21.7 [SD 8.5]), cost (mean 17.5 [SD 2.1]) and coverage (mean 14.0 [SD 4.1]). On average, the innovations met 10 of the 16 criteria. Adoption was the least assessed criterion (n = 9). Most (20) of the innovations were highly ranked for scalability. Interpretation: Scalability varied among innovations, which suggests that readiness for scale up was suboptimal for some innovations. Coverage remained largely unaddressed; further investigation of this critical dimension is necessary.

Interventions aimed at improving sexual health irrespective of age and cancer site should be developed.

Background: The lack of a reporting guideline for scaling of evidence-based practices (EBPs) studies has prompted the registration of the Standards for reporting studies assessing the impact of scaling strategies of EBPs (SUCCEED) with EQUATOR Network. The development of SUCCEED will be guided by the following main steps recommended for developing health research reporting guidelines. Methods: Executive Committee. We established a committee composed of members of the core research team and of an advisory group. Systematic review. guidelines will also be contacted. Study selection and data extraction will be conducted independently by two reviewers. A narrative analysis will be conducted to compile a list of items for the Delphi exercise. Consensus process. We will invite panelists with expertise in: development of relevant reporting guidelines, methodologists, content experts, patient/member of the public, implementers, journal editors, and funders. We anticipated that three rounds of web-based Delphi consensus will be needed for an acceptable degree of agreement. We will use a 9-point scale (1 = extremely irrelevant to 9 = extremely relevant). Participants' response will be categorized as irrelevant (1-3), equivocal (4-6) and relevant (7-9). For each item, the consensus is reached if at least 80% of the participants' votes fall within the same category. The list of items from the final round will be discussed at face-to-face consensus meeting. Guideline validation. Participants will be authors of scaling studies. We will collect quantitative (questionnaire) and qualitative (semi-structured interview) data. Descriptive analyses will be conducted on quantitative data and constant comparative techniques on qualitative data. Discussion: Essential items for reporting scaling studies will contribute to better reporting of scaling studies and facilitate the transparency and scaling of evidence-based health interventions.

Background: Young breast cancer survivors are often dissatisfied with the information provided on fertility and sexuality. Our aim was to discuss possible contributing factors and to propose strategies to increase patient satisfaction with such information. Methods: Using the French National Health Insurance System database, we constituted the ELIPPSE40 regional cohort of 623 women, aged 18-40, diagnosed with breast cancer between 2005 and 2011. As of January 2014, 319 women had taken part in the 10-, 16-, 28 and 48-month telephone interviews. Satisfaction with the information provided about the potential impact of cancer and its treatment on fertility and sexuality was assessed at 48 months after diagnosis on 5-point Likert scales. Results: Four years after diagnosis, only 53.0 and 42.6 % of women were satisfied with fertility-and sexuality-related information, respectively, without any significant change over the 2009-2014 period (P = 0.585 and P = 0.676 respectively). The two issues were moderately correlated (ρ = 0.60; P <0.001). General satisfaction with medical follow-up was the only common correlate. Irrespective of sociodemographic and medical characteristics, satisfaction with fertility-related information was greater among women with a family history of breast/ovarian cancer who had the opportunity to ask questions at the time of cancer disclosure. Satisfaction with sexuality-related information increased with the spontaneous provision of information by physicians at cancer disclosure. Conclusions: Promoting both patients' question asking behavior and more systematic information could improve communication between caregivers and young breast cancer survivors and address distinct unmet needs regarding fertility-and sexuality-related information.