How effective are social norms interventions in changing the clinical behaviours of healthcare workers? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Audit and feedback
Credible source
Health professional behaviour
Information about others’ approval
Meta-analysis
Social comparison
Social incentive
Social norm
Social reward
Systematic review
Journal
Implementation science : IS
ISSN: 1748-5908
Titre abrégé: Implement Sci
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101258411
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 01 2021
07 01 2021
Historique:
received:
12
05
2020
accepted:
09
12
2020
entrez:
8
1
2021
pubmed:
9
1
2021
medline:
26
10
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Healthcare workers perform clinical behaviours which impact on patient diagnoses, care, treatment and recovery. Some methods of supporting healthcare workers in changing their behaviour make use of social norms by exposing healthcare workers to the beliefs, values, attitudes or behaviours of a reference group or person. This review aimed to evaluate evidence on (i) the effect of social norms interventions on healthcare worker clinical behaviour change and (ii) the contexts, modes of delivery and behaviour change techniques (BCTs) associated with effectiveness. Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Searches were undertaken in seven databases. The primary outcome was compliance with a desired healthcare worker clinical behaviour and the secondary outcome was patient health outcomes. Outcomes were converted into standardised mean differences (SMDs). We performed meta-analyses and presented forest plots, stratified by five social norms BCTs (social comparison, credible source, social reward, social incentive and information about others' approval). Sources of variation in social norms BCTs, context and mode of delivery were explored using forest plots, meta-regression and network meta-analysis. Combined data from 116 trials suggested that social norms interventions were associated with an improvement in healthcare worker clinical behaviour outcomes of 0.08 SMDs (95%CI 0.07 to 0.10) (n = 100 comparisons), and an improvement in patient health outcomes of 0.17 SMDs (95%CI 0.14 to 0.20) (n = 14), on average. Heterogeneity was high, with an overall I Social norms interventions appeared to be an effective method of changing the clinical behaviour of healthcare workers and have a positive effect on patient health outcomes in a variety of health service contexts. Although the overall result is modest and variable, there is the potential for social norms interventions to be applied at large scale. PROSPERO CRD42016045718 .
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Healthcare workers perform clinical behaviours which impact on patient diagnoses, care, treatment and recovery. Some methods of supporting healthcare workers in changing their behaviour make use of social norms by exposing healthcare workers to the beliefs, values, attitudes or behaviours of a reference group or person. This review aimed to evaluate evidence on (i) the effect of social norms interventions on healthcare worker clinical behaviour change and (ii) the contexts, modes of delivery and behaviour change techniques (BCTs) associated with effectiveness.
METHODS
Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Searches were undertaken in seven databases. The primary outcome was compliance with a desired healthcare worker clinical behaviour and the secondary outcome was patient health outcomes. Outcomes were converted into standardised mean differences (SMDs). We performed meta-analyses and presented forest plots, stratified by five social norms BCTs (social comparison, credible source, social reward, social incentive and information about others' approval). Sources of variation in social norms BCTs, context and mode of delivery were explored using forest plots, meta-regression and network meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Combined data from 116 trials suggested that social norms interventions were associated with an improvement in healthcare worker clinical behaviour outcomes of 0.08 SMDs (95%CI 0.07 to 0.10) (n = 100 comparisons), and an improvement in patient health outcomes of 0.17 SMDs (95%CI 0.14 to 0.20) (n = 14), on average. Heterogeneity was high, with an overall I
CONCLUSIONS
Social norms interventions appeared to be an effective method of changing the clinical behaviour of healthcare workers and have a positive effect on patient health outcomes in a variety of health service contexts. Although the overall result is modest and variable, there is the potential for social norms interventions to be applied at large scale.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42016045718 .
Identifiants
pubmed: 33413437
doi: 10.1186/s13012-020-01072-1
pii: 10.1186/s13012-020-01072-1
pmc: PMC7792225
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Review
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
8Subventions
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : 17/06/06
Pays : United Kingdom
Références
Stat Med. 2000 Nov 30;19(22):3127-31
pubmed: 11113947
Acad Radiol. 2012 Sep;19(9):1114-20
pubmed: 22727623
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097
pubmed: 19621072
CMAJ. 2016 Feb 2;188(2):108-115
pubmed: 26573754
Am J Public Health. 2010 Nov;100(11):2193-8
pubmed: 20167901
BMJ. 2019 Jan 22;364:k4817
pubmed: 30670455
Ann Behav Med. 2013 Aug;46(1):81-95
pubmed: 23512568
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009 Jan 21;9:5
pubmed: 19159474
BMC Infect Dis. 2016 Aug 05;16:373
pubmed: 27495917
Lancet. 2016 Apr 23;387(10029):1743-52
pubmed: 26898856
Ann Fam Med. 2012 Jan-Feb;10(1):63-74
pubmed: 22230833
BMJ Glob Health. 2019 Jan 25;4(Suppl 1):e000858
pubmed: 30775014
Am J Epidemiol. 1999 Sep 1;150(5):469-75
pubmed: 10472946
Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2007 Feb;63(2):136-47
pubmed: 16803468
Implement Sci. 2014 Jan 17;9:14
pubmed: 24438584
Soc Sci Med. 2010 May;70(10):1618-25
pubmed: 20207464
Health Aff (Millwood). 2015 Feb;34(2):239-44
pubmed: 25646103
Addiction. 2020 Sep;115(9):1607-1617
pubmed: 32043675
Stat Med. 2002 Jun 15;21(11):1559-73
pubmed: 12111920
BMJ Open. 2019 Jun 19;9(6):e029177
pubmed: 31221892
Am J Prev Med. 2007 May;32(5 Suppl):S112-8
pubmed: 17466815
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008 Nov 27;8:79
pubmed: 19036172
BMJ. 2004 Jul 3;329(7456):15-9
pubmed: 15231615
Trials. 2013 Dec 23;14:441
pubmed: 24359543
Ann Behav Med. 2015 Dec;49(6):885-900
pubmed: 26290002
Psychol Sci. 2007 May;18(5):429-34
pubmed: 17576283
Syst Rev. 2019 Jul 18;8(1):176
pubmed: 31319887
Implement Sci. 2013 Dec 17;8:142
pubmed: 24341511
Implement Sci. 2019 Apr 26;14(1):40
pubmed: 31027495
BMJ Qual Saf. 2017 Jun;26(6):495-501
pubmed: 27512102
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Jun 13;(6):CD000259
pubmed: 22696318
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Mar 17;(3):CD005470
pubmed: 20238340
BMJ Open. 2015 Sep 30;5(9):e008592
pubmed: 26423853
PLoS One. 2013 Oct 03;8(10):e76654
pubmed: 24098547