Simon D. French
Other affiliations: University of Melbourne, Queen's University, Monash University, Clayton campus ...read more
Bio: Simon D. French is an academic researcher from Macquarie University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Chiropractic & Low back pain. The author has an hindex of 32, co-authored 150 publications receiving 8785 citations. Previous affiliations of Simon D. French include University of Melbourne & Queen's University.
Papers published on a yearly basis
TL;DR: The results indicated that feedback may be more effective when baseline performance is low, the source is a supervisor or colleague, it is provided more than once, and the role of context and the targeted clinical behaviour was assessed.
Abstract: Background Audit and feedback continues to be widely used as a strategy to improve professional practice. It appears logical that healthcare professionals would be prompted to modify their practice if given feedback that their clinical practice was inconsistent with that of their peers or accepted guidelines. Yet, audit and feedback has not been found to be consistently effective. Objectives To assess the effects of audit and feedback on the practice of healthcare professionals and patient outcomes. Search strategy We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group's register up to January 2001. This was supplemented with searches of MEDLINE and reference lists, which did not yield additional relevant studies. Selection criteria Randomised trials of audit and feedback (defined as any summary of clinical performance over a specified period of time) that reported objectively measured professional practice in a healthcare setting or healthcare outcomes. Data collection and analysis Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. Quantitative (meta-regression), visual and qualitative analyses were undertaken. Main results We included 85 studies, 48 of which have been added to the previous version of this review. There were 52 comparisons of dichotomous outcomes from 47 trials with over 3500 health professionals that compared audit and feedback to no intervention. The adjusted RDs of non-compliance with desired practice varied from 0.09 (a 9% absolute increase in non-compliance) to 0.71 (a 71% decrease in non-compliance) (median = 0.07, inter-quartile range = 0.02 to 0.11). The one factor that appeared to predict the effectiveness of audit and feedback across studies was baseline non-compliance with recommended practice. Reviewer's conclusions Audit and feedback can be effective in improving professional practice. When it is effective, the effects are generally small to moderate. The absolute effects of audit and feedback are more likely to be larger when baseline adherence to recommended practice is low.
TL;DR: A four-step systematic method for developing an intervention designed to change clinical practice based on a theoretical framework is illustrated that provides a systematic framework that could be used by others developing complex implementation interventions.
Abstract: There is little systematic operational guidance about how best to develop complex interventions to reduce the gap between practice and evidence. This article is one in a Series of articles documenting the development and use of the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to advance the science of implementation research. The intervention was developed considering three main components: theory, evidence, and practical issues. We used a four-step approach, consisting of guiding questions, to direct the choice of the most appropriate components of an implementation intervention: Who needs to do what, differently? Using a theoretical framework, which barriers and enablers need to be addressed? Which intervention components (behaviour change techniques and mode(s) of delivery) could overcome the modifiable barriers and enhance the enablers? And how can behaviour change be measured and understood? A complex implementation intervention was designed that aimed to improve acute low back pain management in primary care. We used the TDF to identify the barriers and enablers to the uptake of evidence into practice and to guide the choice of intervention components. These components were then combined into a cohesive intervention. The intervention was delivered via two facilitated interactive small group workshops. We also produced a DVD to distribute to all participants in the intervention group. We chose outcome measures in order to assess the mediating mechanisms of behaviour change. We have illustrated a four-step systematic method for developing an intervention designed to change clinical practice based on a theoretical framework. The method of development provides a systematic framework that could be used by others developing complex implementation interventions. While this framework should be iteratively adjusted and refined to suit other contexts and settings, we believe that the four-step process should be maintained as the primary framework to guide researchers through a comprehensive intervention development process.
TL;DR: There is substantial evidence that audit and feedback can effectively improve quality of care, but little evidence of progress in the field when investigators test quality improvement interventions that do not build upon, or contribute toward, extant knowledge.
Abstract: BACKGROUND This paper extends the findings of the Cochrane systematic review of audit and feedback on professional practice to explore the estimate of effect over time and examine whether new trials have added to knowledge regarding how optimize the effectiveness of audit and feedback.
TL;DR: The evidence base to support the common practice of superficial heat and cold for low back pain is limited and there is a need for future higher-quality randomised controlled trials as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: Background Heat and cold are commonly utilised in the treatment of low-back pain by both health care professionals and people with low-back pain. Objectives To assess the effects of superficial heat and cold therapy for low-back pain in adults. Search strategy We searched the Cochrane Back Review Group Specialised register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2005), MEDLINE (1966 to October 2005), EMBASE (1980 to October 2005) and other relevant databases. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials and non-randomised controlled trials that examined superficial heat or cold therapies in people with low-back pain. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently assessed methodological quality and extracted data, using the criteria recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group. Main results Nine trials involving 1117 participants were included. In two trials of 258 participants with a mix of acute and sub-acute low-back pain, heat wrap therapy significantly reduced pain after five days (weighted mean difference (WMD) 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68 to 1.45, scale range 0 to 5) compared to oral placebo. One trial of 90 participants with acute low-back pain found that a heated blanket significantly decreased acute low-back pain immediately after application (WMD -32.20, 95%CI -38.69 to -25.71, scale range 0 to 100). One trial of 100 participants with a mix of acute and sub-acute low-back pain examined the additional effects of adding exercise to heat wrap, and found that it reduced pain after seven days. There is insufficient evidence to evaluate the effects of cold for low-back pain, and conflicting evidence for any differences between heat and cold for low-back pain. Authors' conclusions The evidence base to support the common practice of superficial heat and cold for low back pain is limited and there is a need for future higher-quality randomised controlled trials. There is moderate evidence in a small number of trials that heat wrap therapy provides a small short-term reduction in pain and disability in a population with a mix of acute and sub-acute low-back pain, and that the addition of exercise further reduces pain and improves function. The evidence for the application of cold treatment to low-back pain is even more limited, with only three poor quality studies located. No conclusions can be drawn about the use of cold for low-back pain. There is conflicting evidence to determine the differences between heat and cold for low-back pain.
TL;DR: Modifiable barriers and facilitators to participation in intentional exercise in hip and/or knee OA are identified and findings using behavior change theory are synthesized.
Abstract: Exercise is recommended for hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA). Patient initiation of, and adherence to, exercise is key to the success of managing symptoms. This study aimed to (1) identify modifiable barriers and facilitators to participation in intentional exercise in hip and/or knee OA, and (2) synthesize findings using behavior change theory. A scoping review with systematic searches was conducted through March 2015. Two reviewers screened studies for eligibility. Barriers and facilitators were extracted and synthesized according to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) by two independent reviewers. Twenty-three studies (total of 4633 participants) were included. The greatest number of unique barriers and facilitators mapped to the Environmental Context and Resources domain. Many barriers were related to Beliefs about Consequences and Beliefs about Capabilities, whereas many facilitators were related to Reinforcement. Clinicians should take a proactive role in facilitating exercise uptake and adherence, rather than trusting patients to independently overcome barriers to exercise. Strategies that may be useful include a personalized approach to exercise prescription, considering environmental context and available resources, personalized education about beneficial consequences of exercise and reassurance about exercise capability, and use of reinforcement strategies. Future research should investigate the effectiveness of behavior change interventions that specifically target these factors.
TL;DR: “BCT taxonomy v1,” an extensive taxonomy of 93 consensually agreed, distinct BCTs, offers a step change as a method for specifying interventions, but the authors anticipate further development and evaluation based on international, interdisciplinary consensus.
Abstract: CONSORT guidelines call for precise reporting of behavior change interventions: we need rigorous methods of characterizing active content of interventions with precision and specificity. The objective of this study is to develop an extensive, consensually agreed hierarchically structured taxonomy of techniques [behavior change techniques (BCTs)] used in behavior change interventions. In a Delphi-type exercise, 14 experts rated labels and definitions of 124 BCTs from six published classification systems. Another 18 experts grouped BCTs according to similarity of active ingredients in an open-sort task. Inter-rater agreement amongst six researchers coding 85 intervention descriptions by BCTs was assessed. This resulted in 93 BCTs clustered into 16 groups. Of the 26 BCTs occurring at least five times, 23 had adjusted kappas of 0.60 or above. “BCT taxonomy v1,” an extensive taxonomy of 93 consensually agreed, distinct BCTs, offers a step change as a method for specifying interventions, but we anticipate further development and evaluation based on international, interdisciplinary consensus.
TL;DR: Prospect Theory led cognitive psychology in a new direction that began to uncover other human biases in thinking that are probably not learned but are part of the authors' brain’s wiring.
Abstract: In 1974 an article appeared in Science magazine with the dry-sounding title “Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases” by a pair of psychologists who were not well known outside their discipline of decision theory. In it Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman introduced the world to Prospect Theory, which mapped out how humans actually behave when faced with decisions about gains and losses, in contrast to how economists assumed that people behave. Prospect Theory turned Economics on its head by demonstrating through a series of ingenious experiments that people are much more concerned with losses than they are with gains, and that framing a choice from one perspective or the other will result in decisions that are exactly the opposite of each other, even if the outcomes are monetarily the same. Prospect Theory led cognitive psychology in a new direction that began to uncover other human biases in thinking that are probably not learned but are part of our brain’s wiring.
TL;DR: It is concluded that multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys should be considered as a legitimate method for answering the question of why people do not respond to survey questions.
Abstract: 25. Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys. By D. B. Rubin. ISBN 0 471 08705 X. Wiley, Chichester, 1987. 258 pp. £30.25.
TL;DR: The refined Theoretical Domains Framework has a strengthened empirical base and provides a method for theoretically assessing implementation problems, as well as professional and other health-related behaviours as a basis for intervention development.
Abstract: An integrative theoretical framework, developed for cross-disciplinary implementation and other behaviour change research, has been applied across a wide range of clinical situations. This study tests the validity of this framework. Validity was investigated by behavioural experts sorting 112 unique theoretical constructs using closed and open sort tasks. The extent of replication was tested by Discriminant Content Validation and Fuzzy Cluster Analysis. There was good support for a refinement of the framework comprising 14 domains of theoretical constructs (average silhouette value 0.29): ‘Knowledge’, ‘Skills’, ‘Social/Professional Role and Identity’, ‘Beliefs about Capabilities’, ‘Optimism’, ‘Beliefs about Consequences’, ‘Reinforcement’, ‘Intentions’, ‘Goals’, ‘Memory, Attention and Decision Processes’, ‘Environmental Context and Resources’, ‘Social Influences’, ‘Emotions’, and ‘Behavioural Regulation’. The refined Theoretical Domains Framework has a strengthened empirical base and provides a method for theoretically assessing implementation problems, as well as professional and other health-related behaviours as a basis for intervention development.
TL;DR: This guideline is to present the available evidence for evaluation and management of acute and chronic low back pain in primary care settings and grades its recommendations by using the ACP's clinical practice guidelines grading system.
Abstract: Recommendation 1: Clinicians should conduct a focused history and physical examination to help place patients with low back pain into 1 of 3 broad categories: nonspecific low back pain, back pain potentially associated with radiculopathy or spinal stenosis, or back pain potentially associated with another specific spinal cause. The history should include assessment of psychosocial risk factors, which predict risk for chronic disabling back pain (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). Recommendation 2: Clinicians should not routinely obtain imaging or other diagnostic tests in patients with nonspecific low back pain (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). Recommendation 3: Clinicians should perform diagnostic imaging and testing for patients with low back pain when severe or progressive neurologic deficits are present or when serious underlying conditions are suspected on the basis of history and physical examination (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). Recommendation 4: Clinicians should evaluate patients with persistent low back pain and signs or symptoms of radiculopathy or spinal stenosis with magnetic resonance imaging (preferred) or computed tomography only if they are potential candidates for surgery or epidural steroid injection (for suspected radiculopathy) (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). Recommendation 5: Clinicians should provide patients with evidence-based information on low back pain with regard to their expected course, advise patients to remain active, and provide information about effective self-care options (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). Recommendation 6: For patients with low back pain, clinicians should consider the use of medications with proven benefits in conjunction with back care information and self-care. Clinicians should assess severity of baseline pain and functional deficits, potential benefits, risks, and relative lack of long-term efficacy and safety data before initiating therapy (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). For most patients, first-line medication options are acetaminophen or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Recommendation 7: For patients who do not improve with selfcare options, clinicians should consider the addition of nonpharmacologic therapy with proven benefits—for acute low back pain, spinal manipulation; for chronic or subacute low back pain, intensive interdisciplinary rehabilitation, exercise therapy, acupuncture, massage therapy, spinal manipulation, yoga, cognitive-behavioral therapy, or progressive relaxation (weak recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).