Guidelines for the implementation of prevention in the general practice setting


The Green Book
4.8 Effectiveness (and efficiency) 
☰ Table of contents


Much time can be spent providing either ineffective care or effective care inefficiently. Effective strategies for prevention in general practice are increasingly well documented. The RACGP Standards for general practices require practices seeking accreditation to demonstrate that they use appropriate guidelines in consultations with their patients.

Box 1. Guidelines

Many guidelines have been produced to aid effective implementation of a range of prevention activities. These include the RACGP’s:

 

Are we strategic in our approach to implementation?

General practices are more effective when they are strategic. Specifically, they should focus on:

  • target conditions that have a significant burden of morbidity113
  • use implementation approaches that have a theoretical rationale114–121
  • areas where there is a clear and accepted role for the GP and the practice team, and the prevention target can be influenced by the actions of each
  • activities with clear aims and objectives.

Box 2. Making the process more strategic3,122–128

Questions to ask:

  • Is it important? (burden of illness)
  • Am I likely to be effective? (role, impact
  • Can I make the outcome visible? (feedback, observable/measurable)
  • What will assist getting a quick return? (reward/reinforcement)
  • Is it desirable? (congruent, win–win, all stakeholders)>
  • Is it do-able? (realistic)
  • Can we make it a routine part of the practice workflow? (sustainable)
 
Icon
Icon

You may wish to improve the level of immunisation coverage against pneumococcal pneumonia in at-risk or older patients. Pneumococcal pneumonia has a significant burden in older patients, and an effective vaccine is available.

If, for example, a recent audit of this group demonstrated pneumococcal coverage of around 44%, a realistic aim would be to increase this coverage to 60% in the first instance. There is good evidence that a GP recommendation to have the pneumococcal vaccine is a significant influence on the patient’s preparedness to get the vaccine.

A GP recommendation also tends to counter any patient concerns or uncertainties about immunisation. In this instance, the focus of the intervention could include having the target population identified on their medical records so that when they attend the practice, the GP or PN is prompted to offer the pneumococcal vaccine.

– Assoc Prof John Litt, Green Book Editorial Committee

 

Do we use effective strategies?

Some examples of effective strategies that support improved prevention performance in general practice include:

  • identifying and instituting a prevention coordination role within the practice
  • securing the services of a PN
  • developing a strong, multidisciplinary teamwork approach
  • ensuring good information management systems for efficiency
  • making the best possible use of existing partnerships, PHNs and other community supports.

There are many technology-based implementation strategies (eg using an app to promote changes to diet), but for some there is inconclusive evidence to support their effectiveness. If you choose to use interventions such as apps as part of your preventive programs, the outcomes should be carefully monitored.


The RACGP’s Handbook of non-drug interventions (HANDI) provides examples of some effective apps.

The RACGP also has released the resource mHealth in general practice: A toolkit for effective and secure use ofmobile technology.


Effective implementation strategies and processes are described in Table 4. Strategies that tend to be less preferred by GPs can often be more effective (eg practice register and reminder systems, team meetings, appointment of a prevention coordinator).

Table 4. Effectiveness of implementation strategies

Strategy

Effectiveness

Comments/requirements

Organisational

Organisational changes and improvements such as:

  1. clarification of roles
  2. delegation of tasks
  3. practice policy/standing orders, protocols
  4. incentives
  5. computer decision support (eg practice registers and reminders)

Highly effective1,13,56,71,89,126,129–133

Contributes to implementation of preventive interventions and helps sustain them

Impact varies with area, capacity and acceptability

Continuous Quality Improvement (program)

Effective85,98,134–136

Needs active GP involvement and feedback, and a supportive practice infrastructure

Practice coordinator/facilitator/ educational outreach49,72,137–141

Effective47,64,140,141

May be someone within the practice or external

Teamwork

Effective15,98,105,142–149

 

Specific clinics

Somewhat effective150–153

More effective for conditions involving a team of health professionals and where large numbers of patients need to be seen

Health checks

Somewhat effective86,154–156

Potential for over-diagnosis, and unnecessary interventions with associated harms. Needs to be implemented with appropriate follow-up

Local opinion leaders/ champions

Effective in some situations12,56,139,157

Opinion leaders are from the local peer group, viewed as a respected source of influence, considered by associates as technically competent, and trusted to judge the fit between the evidence base of the practice and the local situation158

Assist in spreading information and examples

Patient

Reminders for patients

Very effective159–163

Needs to be targeted

Motivational interviewing

Effective164–173

Effectiveness varies across areas

Health coaching

Effective74,94,174–176

Considerable overlap with motivational interviewing; more useful in chronic disease and facilitating self- management

Health coaching is a structured, supportive partnership between the participant and the coach that effectively motivates behaviour change

Patient education and printed educational materials

Variable effectiveness76,177,178

Need to be combined with other interventions

Shared decision-making

Variable effectiveness81,179–184

Key characteristics:

  1. at least two participants (physician and patient) need to be involved
  2. both parties share information
  3. both parties take steps to build a consensus about the preferred treatment
  4. an agreement is reached on implementing treatment185

mHealth/eHealth
(eg SMS, social media)

Variable
(but generally positive) effectiveness162,163,186–191

eHealth is the application of information, computer or communication technology to some aspects of health or healthcare

mHealth is when it is delivered through a mobile phone

Healthcare worker

Delegation to the PN or other substitution of care

Effective70,88,192–195

Needs to be a clear outline of the role of the PN, and adequate training and support

Reminders for the GP

Variable effectiveness135,139,160,196–200

Computerised reminders have a similar impact to manual reminders

Needs to be targeted

Health summary sheet/flow sheets

Somewhat effective201–207

Acts as a prompt and aide-memoire; impact higher if used in conjunction with other strategies

Practice accreditation standards require a minimum number to be completed

Case note audit +/– feedback

Effective72,133,137,208–210

Impacts particularly on prescribing and test ordering

Feedback

Effective in some situations; usually evaluated in conjunction with audit91,211

Presentation is multi-modal, including either text and talking or text and graphical materials

Delivery comes from a trusted source
Feedback includes comparison data with relevant others

Feedback is more effective when accompanied by explicit goals and an action plan

Recipients of targeted behaviour should be amenable to feedback

Recipients should be capable and responsible for improvement

Target performance needs to be provided

Goals set for the target behaviour are aligned with personal and organisational priorities

Goals for target behaviour are specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, time-bound

A clear action plan is provided when discrepancies are evident

Medical education

Variable effectiveness12,71,83,212–214

Learning is more effective if it is linked to clinical practice and self-directed, multifaceted active educational methods

Extra-professional education

Limited evidence95,105,215,216

Occurs when two or more professions learn with, about, and from each other to enable effective collaboration and improve health outcomes215

Lectures

Not effective12,79,83,217

 

implementation strategies does not necessarily increase the level of performance. The process needs to be strategic. It should:

  • address practice systems and infrastructure
  • provide adequate leadership (eg local champion, planning and coordination)
  • encompass a wide array of strengths, skills, resources and competencies.
 

Do we use time effectively?

It does not always follow that spending an increased amount of time with a patient on a preventive issue leads to a proportionally better outcome. For example, spending 20 minutes counselling a patient who smokes does not necessarily provide four times the benefit of spending just five minutes counselling the same patient.

Sometimes less is more, and you may be more effective by providing some components of the prevention activities to all patients than providing considerable input to fewer patients. The ‘reality pyramid’ provides an incremental and systematic strategy to improve the delivery of lifestyle advice in the GP setting, using smoking cessation as an example (Figure 8).

Writing down the various intervention components and the chronological sequence of steps will also help the implementation to be more systematic. 

 

Figure 8. Reality pyramid for smoking cessation

Figure 8. Reality pyramid for smoking cessation

 

The pyramid highlights the ‘less is more’ (one minute for prevention) approach. The base level of the pyramid outlines the practice infrastructure that supports the GP (and others) to provide preventive care. It emphasises the value of teamwork and demonstrates that using other practice resources and establishing appropriate reminder and referral systems can facilitate brief interventions. It supports the notion that it is unrealistic to expect the GP to be the sole provider of preventive care within the practice. It provides a prompt for the best use of
time during a consultation, starting with a very brief intervention for most patients and then using more intense strategies with fewer patients. The interventions should cover the activities likely to have the biggest impact for the patient in most circumstances. It recognises that spending more time is often necessary, but reflects the reality that most GPs have about a minute of ‘disposable’ time to raise and/or discuss an issue they think is pertinent and important to the patient. The one minute can be spent in a number of ways:

  • focusing on specific evidence-based guidelines
  • justifying why an additional consultation is worthwhile (you might suggest to the patient that the unassisted quit rate is around 3–7%, whereas with GP assistance, together with external support, this success rate can be boosted fourfold to sixfold;218–220 given the difficulty with quitting, anything that helps maximise success seems a sensible choice, provided it is acceptable to the patient)
  • justifying why seeing someone else (eg PN) may be helpful
  • outlining the value and effectiveness of the Quitline.
– Assoc Prof John Litt, Green Book Editorial Committee

 

Do we apply effort effectively?

Considerable effort may be required before you begin to see change. Things may then proceed relatively smoothly with less effort. Reaching the final stage of desired improvement may also require extensive effort. For example, moving from 90% to 100% vaccination coverage may take more effort than getting to the 90% in the first place.

 

Efficiency (How can I make the intervention easily do-able and routine?)


An effective preventive intervention should also be delivered efficiently. It needs to be incorporated into the practice routine without creating significant extra work in order to be sustainable.

It is not possible for general practices to provide all recommended prevention services. You need to decide where to focus attention in order to deliver the best possible outcomes with the available resources for the groups of patients targeted. Some useful questions to consider are:

  • What is the cost and staff time to do this?
  • Does it make good business sense?
  • Are there any resources that you are underusing, or are you duplicating services?

For example, GPs may continue to be offering the influenza vaccine to patients they are seeing rather than getting the PN to run a flu vaccination clinic. Using the latter strategy would give the GP more time to talk to the patient about other important medical issues.
 

Does it fit with our practice and our culture?

To make prevention processes sustainable, ensure that the process is:221,222

  • adapted to the local context
  • consistent with the practice and professional goals
  • integrated into workflows so that, where possible, it doesn’t take more time.

It is important to also monitor and review practice procedure and policy manuals, clarify roles and tasks, appoint a coordinator and encourage all staff to contribute.223 You will need to ensure that the QI process incorporates a review of the outcomes.

 

What is the most important contribution we can make?

GPs and practice teams should complement prevention activities by using effective or more efficient population- based or community-based prevention strategies. Examples include:

  • population screening programs (eg breast screening, cervical screening, bowel screening)
  • population registers (eg immunisation register, cancer registers)
  • screening for familial disease (eg family history questionnaire for cancer, heart disease and diabetes), which is often under-recorded
  • childhood health programs (eg Healthy Kids weight management resources for health professionals)
  • media strategies to address issues such as smoking cessation and hazardous drinking.

Most established national programs have reached coverage of 50–60% (eg BreastScreen Australia, 54% participation;224 cervical screening, 56% participation225). GPs are key influencers in screening participation and play a significant role in improving coverage.226,227

 
Icon
Icon

Putting it all together with a complex patient: Case study

The patient, female, aged 91 years, is a war widow living alone in a suburban area, with one son (aged in his 70s) living a 15-minute drive away. She has multiple comorbidities:

  • vasculopathy (coronary artery bypass graft and small cerebrovascular accident)
  • biventricular failure, well controlled on diuretic
  • unstable angina
  • ‘burnt out’ rheumatoid arthritis
  • anxiety disorder/multiple phobias
  • low BMI, frail, with falls risk and accidental injury risk both high
  • multiple drug allergies/intolerances.

She has had frequent hospital admissions related to left ventricle function, unstable angina and injuries. The patient goals are to:

  • stay at home (when she is no longer able to go out for lunch) and die there
  • not be a burden to her son
  • avoid admission to two out of three local hospitals at all costs (she has a phobic reaction to two).

The GP aims and goals are to:

  • allow the patient to stay in her own home as long as possible
  • give her a sense of control over her healthcare transactions
  • avoid identified risks.
  • The main risks are:
  • falls and injuries
  • medication misadventure post-hospital admissions
  • unavoidable nursing home admission.

Who helped the practice and you as GP?

We looked at what the Coordinated Veterans’ Care (CVC) program offered. Strategies employed within the CVC program to manage risks and support patient goals:

  • The GP is supported to operate within a community team structure, independent of extended primary care (EPC) structures, and to do ‘non–face-to-face’ work/extended liaison.
  • The PN role is able to expand and consolidate, evolving into a pivotal role, formalised in broad enablers (improved coordination and collaboration; better targeting of care and identification of barriers; improved ability of the PN, the patient and the patient’s family to identify and manage issues as they arise; improved efficiency). The PN is involved in day-to-day management under CVC funding.

What did you do to make it happen?

  • Drilling down – we wrote the above features into a CVC plan and reviewed this regularly to ensure implementation was happening as it should and to explore opportunities to expand.
  • We involved the PN from the beginning.
  • The GP was supported to work within a team structure, especially before, during and after admissions to hospital. This overcame the barrier imposed by the descriptor around use of EPC case conference items.

What specific strategies did you use?

  • Congestive cardiac failure (CCF) – early detection via phone of exacerbation of health problems, with added opportunity to conduct wider phone assessment as indicated.
  • Employed sick day management plan as required for the patient.
  • A shared plan around emergency admissions – we organised a direct link for patient or son by mobile phone with the GP if an ambulance crew was attending. The GP would speak to the crew and emergency department (ED) at the only hospital acceptable to the patient and arrange transfer (this was often critical, as private EDs are frequently ‘on bypass’ and crews are otherwise instructed to transport all patients to a public ED). This strategy came into play about once yearly.
  • Advocacy and active contribution to management during hospital admission (eg GP successfully advocated to arrange blood transfusion prior to discharge after skin graft for shin wound, resulting in symptomatic improvement in CCF and [likely] accelerated healing)
  • Better clarification of roles and responsibilities.

CVC enables an individualised and high-quality (bespoke) plan by acknowledging several factors that enable this type of more detailed and dynamically responsive care. 

What outcomes/improvements do you think you achieved?

  • Vastly enhanced patient confidence that her needs were being met
  • High-level support for son
  • Readmission avoidance
  • Tight medication control
  • Good time management (minimisation of wastage from poor communication)
  • Team satisfaction with results and a sense of cohesion

What made the most difference?

Communication made the biggest difference.

The involvement of the PN in this new level of communication was paramount, with a move away from a narrow role of relaying messages and basic triage.

Central to this was the formalisation of this broader role of the PN through the renaming of this role in the CVC descriptor. Our nurses were pleased to embrace this recognition.

Instead of having the PN conduct a holistic health assessment once a year, this occurred on a continuous basis.
The program gave the PN a sense of ownership and provided the PN with an extra quarterly payment as a reward for extra effort. Other advantages were in:

  • talking through issues, conducting phone and onsite assessment, trouble shooting and safety netting
  • liaison with family, being able to include them in real-time decision-making.

What would you say to GPs who may consider doing similar things? What would you do differently?

Meet face to face more often with key community care team members for optimal shared understanding when a situation becomes critical (eg trying to avoid an admission).

For frail, elderly people with multimorbidity at home, the ground can shift in a 24-hour period. Micromanagement is necessary to prevent deterioration in health status with ensuing hospital admissions or nursing home attendance.

Relationships are crucial to the success of these strategies – most older people cling to the advice of those, and only those, they trust. This is why they sometimes wait for their own physician to return from leave.
Enacting the detail of a care plan is important, with, for example, weekly phone-ins and maintaining a current weight or fluid chart.

A ‘hospital in the home’ set-up can be achieved in a limited fashion if parameters are clearly defined. Twice-daily review for 2–3 days can be very effective. Geographic proximity is important.

You can keep someone at home with diarrhoea and heart failure for one night, but only if you can check on them the next day.

Liaison with a pharmacist is more vital than ever, with multitudes of brands of drugs and dwindling commitment to providing continuity of personnel or product. Frequent checking of packets for errors will help avoid medication misadventure.

Having a person stay at home sick rather than go to hospital requires confidence in covering the dusk-to-dawn phase (eg ensuring the patient/carer has a number they can call if things go wrong).

In the case described, our patient required someone to direct the ambulance to the correct ED.

In terms on return on effort, do you think the whole process was worthwhile?

Very much so! Basically, this is how I was already operating but didn’t feel like I could ask much of our PN without dedicated funding.
The feedback from patient and family was superb, and we even regularly heard second-hand from others (eg the ambulance service) about how well the system worked and how different it was from normal care.

– Dr Christine Boyce, Hobart GP

The Green Book



 
 
  1. Ross J, Stevenson F, Lau R, Murray E. Factors that influence the implementation of e-health: A systematic review of systematic reviews (an update). Implement Sci 2016;11(1):146.
  2. Kastner M, Bhattacharyya O, Hayden L, et al. Guideline uptake is influenced by six implementability domains for creating and communicating guidelines: A realist review. J Clin Epidemiol 2015;68(5):498–509.
  3. Braithwaite J, Marks D, Taylor N. Harnessing implementation science to improve care quality and patient safety: A systematic review of targeted literature. Int J Qual Health Care 2014;26(3):321–29.
  4. Ling T, Brereton L, Conklin A, Newbould J, Roland M. Barriers and facilitators to integrating care: Experiences from the English Integrated Care Pilots. Int J Integr Care 2012;12:e129.
  5. Wilkinson J, Powell A, Davies H. Evidence: Are clinicians engaged in quality improvement?: A review of the literature on healthcare professionals’ views on quality improvement initiatives. London, UK: The Health Foundation, 2011.
  6. O’Connor S, Hanlon P, O’Donnell CA, Garcia S, Glanville J, Mair FS. Understanding factors affecting patient and public engagement and recruitment to digital health interventions: A systematic review of qualitative studies. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2016;16(1):120.
  7. Dalton J, Chambers D, Harden M, Street A, Parker G, Eastwood A. Service user engagement in health service reconfiguration: A rapid evidence synthesis. J Health Serv Res Policy 2016;21(3):195–205.
  8. Barello S, Triberti S, Graffigna G, et al. eHealth for patient engagement: A systematic review. Front Psychol 2016;6:2013.
  9. O’Mara-Eves A, Brunton G, McDaid D, et al. Community engagement to reduce inequalities in health: A systematic review, meta-analysis and economic analysis. Public Health Research. Southampton, UK: NIHR Journals Library, 2013.
  10. Koopmans B, Nielen MM, Schellevis FG, Korevaar JC. Non-participation in population-based disease prevention programs in general practice. BMC Public Health 2012;12:856.
  11. Brown BB, Patel C, McInnes E, Mays N, Young J, Haines M. The effectiveness of clinical networks in improving quality of care and patient outcomes: A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies. BMC Health Serv Res 2016;16:360.
  12. Mostofian F, Ruban C, Simunovic N, Bhandari M. Changing physician behavior: What works? Am J Manag Care 2015;21(1):75–84.
  13. Milat AJ, Bauman A, Redman S. Narrative review of models and success factors for scaling up public health interventions. Implement Sci 2015;10:113.
  14. Ingebrigtsen T, Georgiou A, Clay-Williams R, et al.The impact of clinical leadership on health information technology adoption: Systematic review. Int J Med Inform 2014;83(6):393–405.
  15. Chung VC, Ma PH, Hong LC, Griffiths SM. Organizational determinants of interprofessional collaboration in integrative health care: Systematic review of qualitative studies. PLoS One 2012;7(11):e50022.
  16. Best A, Greenhalgh T, Lewis S, Saul JE, Carroll S, Bitz J. Large-system transformation in health care: A realist review. Milbank Q 2012;90(3):421–56.
  17. Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice:A consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci 2009;4:50.
  18. Doran G. There’s a S.M.A.R.T. way to write management’s goals and objectives. Management Review AMA Forum 1981;70(11):35–36.
  19. Leeman J, Calancie L, Hartman MA, et al. What strategies are used to build practitioners’ capacity to implement community-based interventions and are they effective?A systematic review. Implement Sci 2015;10:80.
  20. Flottorp SA, Oxman AD, Krause J, et al. A checklist for identifying determinants of practice: A systematic review and synthesis of frameworks and taxonomies of factors that prevent or enable improvements in healthcare professional practice. Implement Sci 2013;8:35.
  21. Sobal J, Valente CM, Muncie HL Jr, Levine DM, Deforge BR. Physicians’ beliefs about the importance of 25 health promoting behaviors. Am J Public Health 1985;75(12):1427–28.
  22. Scott CS, Neighbor WE, Brock DM. Physicians’ attitudes toward preventive care services: A seven-year prospective cohort study. Am J Prev Med 1992;8(4):241–48.
  23. Kviz FJ, Clark MA, Prohaska TR, et al. Attitudes and practices for smoking cessation counseling by provider type and patient age. Prev Med 1995;24(2):201–12.
  24. Weingarten S, Stone E, Hayward R, et al. The adoption of preventive care practice guidelines by primary care physicians: Do actions match intentions? J Gen Intern Med 1995;10(3):138–44.
  25. Woollard J, Beilin L, Lord T, Puddey I, MacAdam D, Rouse I. A controlled trial of nurse counselling on lifestyle change for hypertensives treated in general practice: Preliminary results. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol 1995;22(6–7):466–68.
  26. Henry RC, Ogle KS, Snellman LA. Preventive medicine: Physician practices, beliefs, and perceived barriers for implementation. Fam Med 1987;19(2):110–13.
  27. Coulter A, Schofield T. Prevention in general practice: The views of doctors in the Oxford region. Br J Gen Pract 1991;41(345):140–43.
  28. Litzelman DK, Tierney WM. Physicians’ reasons for failing to comply with computerized preventive care guidelines. J Gen Intern Med 1996;11(8):497–99.
  29. Checkland P. Soft systems methodology: A 30-year retrospective. Chichester, New York: John Wiley, 1999.
  30. Inui TS, Belcher DW, Carter WB. Implementing preventive care in clinical practice. I. Organizational issues and strategies. Med Care Rev 1981;38(3):129–54.
  31. Schhein E. Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Josset-Bass, 1985.
  32. Carney PA, Dietrich AJ, Keller A, Landgraf J, O’Connor GT. Tools, teamwork, and tenacity: An office system for cancer prevention. J Fam Pract 1992;35(4):388–94.
  33. Walsh JM, McPhee SJ. A systems model of clinical preventive care: An analysis of factors influencing patient and physician. Health Educ Q 1992;19(2):157–75.
  34. McPhee SJ, Detmer WM. Office-based interventions to improve delivery of cancer prevention services by primary care physicians. Cancer 1993;72(3 Suppl):1100–12.
  35. Davis DA, Thomson MA, Oxman AD, Haynes RB. Changing physician performance. A systematic review of the effect of continuing medical education strategies. JAMA 1995;274(9):700–05. 
  36. Leininger LS, Finn L, Dickey L, et al. An office system for organizing preventive services: A report by the American Cancer Society Advisory Group on Preventive Health Care Reminder Systems. Arch Fam Med 1996;5(2):108–15.
  37. Rosenheck RA. Organizational process: A missing link between research and practice. Psychiatr Serv 2001;52(12):1607–12.
  38. Scott E, Anderson P.  Randomized controlled trial of general practitioner intervention in women with excessive alcohol consumption. Drug Alcohol Rev 1991;10(4):313–21.
  39. Cargill VA, Conti M, Neuhauser D, McClish D. Improving the effectiveness of screening for colorectal cancer by involving nurse clinicians. Med Care 1991;29(1):1–5.
  40. Baskerville NB, Hogg W, Lemelin J. Process evaluation of a tailored multifaceted approach to changing family physician practice patterns improving preventive care. J Fam Pract 2001;50(3):W242–49.
  41. Nutting PA, Miller WL, Crabtree BF, Jaen CR, Stewart EE, Stange KC. Initial lessons from the first national demonstration project on practice transformation to a patient-centered medical home. Ann Fam Med 2009;7(3):254–60.
  42. Gagliardi AR, Berta W, Kothari A, Boyko J, Urquhart R. Integrated knowledge translation (IKT) in health care:A scoping review. Implement Sci 2016;11:38.
  43. Sutcliffe K, Thomas J, Stokes G, Hinds K, Bangpan M. Intervention Component Analysis (ICA): A pragmatic approach for identifying the critical features of complex interventions. Syst Rev 2015;4:140.
  44. Hoffmann TC, Del Mar C. Patients’ expectations of the benefits and harms of treatments, screening, and tests: A systematic review. JAMA Intern Med 2015;175(2):274–86.
  45. Sadeghi-Bazargani H, Tabrizi JS, Azami-Aghdash S. Barriers to evidence-based medicine: A systematic review. J Eval Clin Pract 2014;20(6):793–802.
  46. James KA, Fernald DH, Huff J, et al. GAPS in implementing health assessments in primary care:A literature review. J Ambul Care Manage 2014;37(1):2–10.
  47. Christl, B, Lloyd J, Krastev Y, Litt J, Harris M. Preventing vascular disease: Effective strategies for implementing guidelines in general practice. Aust Fam Physician 2011;40(10):825–28.
  48. Grimshaw J, Thomas R, MacLennan G, et al. Effectiveness and efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies. Health Technol Assess 2004;8(6):1–72.
  49. Chan WV, Pearson TA, Bennett GC, et al. ACC/AHA special report: Clinical practice guideline implementation strategies: A summary of systematic reviews by the NHLBI implementation science work group: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017;69(8):1076–92.
  50. Wong VW, Lok KY, Tarrant M. Interventions to increase the uptake of seasonal influenza vaccination among pregnant women: A systematic review. Vaccine 2016;34(1):20–32.
  51. Verbakel NJ, Langelaan M, Verheij TJ, Wagner C, Zwart DL. Improving patient safety culture in primary care:A systematic review. J Patient Saf 2016;12(3):152–58.
  52. Syrowatka A, Krömker D, Meguerditchian AN, Tamblyn R. Features of computer-based decision aids: Systematic review, thematic synthesis, and meta-analyses. J Med Internet Res 2016;18(1):e20.
  53. Posadzki P, Mastellos N, Ryan R, et al. Automated telephone communication systems for preventive healthcare and management of long-term conditions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016;12:CD009921.
  54. Porchia B, Bonanni P, Bechini A, Bonaccorsi G, Boccalini S. Evaluating the costs and benefits of pneumococcal vaccination in adults. Expert Rev Vaccines 2017;16(2):93–107.
  55. McElwaine KM, Freund M, Campbell EM, Bartlem KM, Wye PM, Wiggers JH. Systematic review of interventions to increase the delivery of preventive care by primary care nurses and allied health clinicians. Implement Sci 2016;11:50.
  56. Lau R, Stevenson F, Ong BN, et al. Achieving change in primary care – Causes of the evidence to practice gap: Systematic reviews of reviews. Implement Sci 2016;11:40.
  57. Körner M, Bütof S, Müller C, Zimmermann L, Becker S, Bengel J. Interprofessional teamwork and team interventions in chronic care: A systematic review.J Interprof Care 2016;30(1):15–28.
  58. Jacobs RJ, Lou JQ, Ownby RL, Caballero J. A systematic review of eHealth interventions to improve health literacy. Health Informatics J 2016;22(2):81–98.
  59. Gagnon MP, Ngangue P, Payne-Gagnon J, Desmartis M.m-Health adoption by healthcare professionals: A systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2016;23(1):212–20.
  60. Gagliardi AR, Légaré F, Brouwers MC, Webster F, Badley E, Straus S. Patient-mediated knowledge translation (PKT) interventions for clinical encounters: A systematic review. Implement Sci 2016;11:26.
  61. Fudge N, Sadler E, Fisher HR, Maher J, Wolfe CD, McKevitt C. Optimising translational research opportunities: A systematic review and narrative synthesis of basic and clinician scientists’ perspectives of factors which enable or hinder translational research. PLoS One 2016;11(8):e0160475.
  62. Escribà-Agüir V, Rodríguez-Gómez M, Ruiz-Pérez I. Effectiveness of patient-targeted interventions to promote cancer screening among ethnic minorities:A systematic review. Cancer Epidemiol 2016;44:22–39.
  63. Campanella P, Lovato E, Marone C, et al. The impact of electronic health records on healthcare quality:A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Public Health 2016;26(1):60–64.
  64. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Developing and running a primary care practice facilitation program: A how-to guide. Rockville, MD: AHRQ, updated 2015.
  65. Stammen LA, Stalmeijer RE, Paternotte E, et al. Training physicians to provide high-value, cost-conscious care: A systematic review. JAMA 2015;314(22):2384–400.
  66. Sinclair P, Kable A, Levett-Jones T. The effectiveness of internet-based e-learning on clinician behavior and patient outcomes: A systematic review protocol. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep 2015;13(1):52–64.
  67. Senore C, Inadomi J, Segnan N, Bellisario C, Hassan C. Optimising colorectal cancer screening acceptance: A review. Gut 2015;64(7):1158–77.
  68. Oliveira VC, Ferreira ML, Pinto RZ,  Filho  RF, Refshauge K, Ferreira PH. Effectiveness of training clinicians’ communication skills on patients’ clinical outcomes: A systematic review. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2015;38(8):601–16.
  69. Nair NK, Newton NC, Shakeshaft A, Wallace P, Teesson M. A systematic review of digital and computer-based alcohol intervention programs in primary care. Curr Drug Abuse Rev 2015;8(2):111–18.
  70. Martínez-González NA, Rosemann T, Djalali S, Huber- Geismann F, Tandjung R. Task-shifting from physicians to nurses in primary care and its impact on resource utilization: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Med Care Res Rev 2015;72(4):395–418.
  71. Lau R, Stevenson F, Ong BN, et al. Achieving change in primary care – Effectiveness of strategies for improving implementation of complex interventions: Systematic review of reviews. BMJ Open 2015;5(12):e009993.
  72. Johnson MJ, May CR. Promoting professional behaviour change in healthcare: What interventions work, and why? A theory-led overview of systematic reviews.BMJ Open 2015;5(9):e008592.
  73. Horodyska K, Luszczynska A, Hayes CB, et al. Implementation conditions for diet and physical activity interventions and policies: An umbrella review.BMC Public Health 2015;15:1250.
  74. Hill B, Richardson B, Skouteris H. Do we know how to design effective health coaching interventions: A systematic review of the state of the literature. Am J Health Promot 2015;29(5):e158–68.
  75. Hall K, Staiger PK, Simpson A, Best D, Lubman DI. After 30 years of dissemination, have we achieved sustained practice change in motivational interviewing? Addiction 2016;111(7):1144–50.
  76. Grudniewicz A, Kealy R, Rodseth RN, Hamid J,  Rudoler D, Straus SE. What is the effectiveness of printed educational materials on primary care physician knowledge, behaviour, and patient outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analyses. Implement Sci 2015;10:164.
  77. Green AC, Hayman LL, Cooley ME. Multiple health behavior change in adults with or at risk for cancer: A systematic review. Am J Health Behav 2015;39(3):380–94.
  78. Gibson O, Lisy K, Davy C, et al. Enablers and barriers to the implementation of primary health care interventions for Indigenous people with chronic diseases: A systematic review. Implement Sci 2015;10:71.
  79. Cervero RM, Gaines JK. The impact of CME on physician performance and patient health outcomes: An updated synthesis of systematic reviews. J Contin Educ Health Prof 2015;35(2):131–38.
  80. Aziz Z, Absetz P, Oldroyd J, Pronk NP, Oldenburg B.A systematic review of real-world diabetes prevention programs: Learnings from the last 15 years. Implement Sci 2015;10:172.
  81. Thompson-Leduc P, Clayman ML, Turcotte S, Légaré F. Shared decision-making behaviours in health professionals: A systematic review of studies based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Health Expect 2015;18(5):754–74.
  82. Thomas RE, Lorenzetti DL. Interventions to increase influenza vaccination rates of those 60 years and  older in the community. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;(7):CD005188.
  83. Thepwongsa I, Kirby CN, Schattner P, Piterman L. Online continuing medical education (CME) for GPs: Does it work? A systematic review. Aust Fam Physician 2014;43(10):717–21.
  84. Taylor SJC, Pinnock H, Epiphaniou E, et al. A rapid synthesis of the evidence on interventions supporting self-management for people with long-term conditions: PRISMS – Practical systematic Review of Self- Management Support for long-term conditions. Health Services and Delivery Research. Southampton, UK: NIHR Journals Library, 2014. Taylor MJ, McNicholas C, Nicolay C, Darzi A, Bell D,
  85. Reed JE. Systematic review of the application of  the plan-do-study-act method to improve quality in healthcare. BMJ Qual Saf 2014;23(4):290–98.
  86. Si S, Moss JR, Sullivan TR, Newton SS, Stocks NP. Effectiveness of general practice-based health checks: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Gen Pract 2014;64(618):e47–53.
  87. McEvoy R, Ballini L, Maltoni S, O’Donnell CA,  Mair FS, Macfarlane A. A qualitative systematic review of studies using the normalization process theory to research implementation processes. Implement Sci 2014;9:2.
  88. Martínez-González NA, Tandjung R, Djalali S, Huber- Geismann F, Markun S, Rosemann T. Effects of physician-nurse substitution on clinical  parameters: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2014;9(2):e89181.
  89. Janamian T, Jackson CL, Glasson N, Nicholson C. A systematic review of the challenges to implementation of the patient-centred medical home: Lessons for Australia. Med J Aust 2014;201(3 Suppl):S69–73.
  90. Jacobs RJ, Lou JQ, Ownby RL, Caballero J. A systematic review of eHealth interventions to improve health literacy. Health Informatics J 2016;22(2):81–98.
  91. Ivers NM, Sales A, Colquhoun H, et al. No more ‘business as usual’ with audit and feedback interventions: Towards an agenda for a reinvigorated intervention. Implement Sci 2014;9:14.
  92. Fu LY, Bonhomme LA, Cooper SC, Joseph JG, Zimet GD. Educational interventions to increase HPV vaccination acceptance: A systematic review. Vaccine 2014;32(17):1901–20.
  93. Donoghue K, Patton R, Phillips T, Deluca P, Drummond C. The effectiveness of electronic screening and brief intervention for reducing levels of alcohol consumption: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Internet Res 2014;16(6):e142.
  94. Wolever RQ, Simmons LA, Sforzo GA, et al. A systematic review of the literature on health and wellness coaching: Defining a key behavioral intervention in healthcare. Glob Adv Health Med 2013;2(4):38–57.
  95. Reeves S, Perrier L, Goldman J, Freeth D, Zwarenstein M. Interprofessional education: Effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes (update). Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;(3):CD002213.
  96. Long JC, Cunningham FC, Braithwaite J. Bridges, brokers and boundary spanners in collaborative networks: A systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res 2013;13:158.
  97. Jackson GL, Powers BJ, Chatterjee R, et al. Improving patient care. The patient centered medical home. A systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2013;158(3):169–78.
  98. Hulscher ME, Schouten LM, Grol RP, Buchan H. Determinants of success of quality improvement collaboratives: What does the literature show? BMJ Qual Saf 2013;22(1):19–31.
  99. Goveia J, Van Stiphout F, Cheung Z, et al. Educational interventions to improve the meaningful use of Electronic Health Records: A review of the literature: BEME Guide No. 29. Med Teach 2013;35(11):e1551–60.
  100. Gelly J, Mentre F, Nougairede M, Duval X. Preventive services recommendations for adults in primary care settings: Agreement between Canada, France and the USA – A systematic review. Prev Med 2013;57(1):3–11.
  101. Boyce MB, Browne JP. Does providing feedback on patient-reported outcomes to healthcare professionals result in better outcomes for patients? A systematic review. Qual Life Res 2013;22(9):2265–78.
  102. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Behaviour change: General approaches (PH6). London: NICE, 2007.  [Accessed 9 March 2018].
  103. Solberg LI, Kottke TE, Brekke ML, Calomeni CA, Conn SA, Davidson G. Using continuous quality improvement to increase preventive services in clinical practice – Going beyond guidelines. Prev Med 1996;25(3):259–67.
  104. Palsbo S, Kroll T, McNeil M. Addressing chronic conditions through community partnerships: A formative evaluation of taking on diabetes. New York City:The Commonwealth Fund, 2004.  [Accessed 29 January 2017].
  105. Braithwaite J. Bridging gaps to promote networked care between teams and groups in health delivery systems: A systematic review of non-health literature. BMJ Open 2015;5(9):e006567.
  106. Østbye T, Yarnall KS, Krause KM, Pollak KI, Gradison M, Michener JL. Is there time for management of patients with chronic diseases in primary care? Ann Fam Med 2005;3(3):209–14.
  107. Yarnall KS, Pollak KI, Østbye T, Krause KM, Michener JL. Primary care: Is there enough time for prevention? Am J Public Health 2003;93(4):635–41.
  108. Vermeire E, Hearnshaw H, Van Royen P, Denekens J. Patient adherence to treatment: Three decades of research. A comprehensive review. J Clin Pharm Ther 2001;26(5):331–42.
  109. DiMatteo MR, Giordani PJ, Lepper HS, Croghan TW. Patient adherence and medical treatment outcomes: A meta-analysis. Med Care 2002;40(9):794–811.
  110. Frosch DL, Kaplan RM. Shared decision making in clinical medicine: Past research and future directions. Am J Prev Med 1999;17(4):285–94.
  111. Cunningham FC, Ranmuthugala G, Plumb J, Georgiou A, Westbrook JI, Braithwaite J. Health professional networks as a vector for improving healthcare quality and safety: A systematic review. BMJ Qual Saf 2012;21(3):239–49.
  112. Campbell SM, Hann M, Hacker J, et al. Identifying predictors of high quality care in English general practice: Observational study. BMJ 2001;323(7316):784–87.
  113. Meddler J, Kahn N, Susman J. Risk factors and recommendations for 230 adult primary care patients, based on US Preventive Services Task Force Guidelines. Am J Prev Med 1992;8(3):150–53.
  114. Solberg LI. Guideline implementation: What the literature doesn’t tell us. Jt Comm J Qual Improv 2000;26(9):525–37.
  115. Smith WR. Evidence for the effectiveness of techniques To change physician behavior. Chest 2000;118(2 Suppl):8S–17S.
  116. Gross PA. Implementing evidence-based recommendations for health care: A roundtable comparing European and American experiences. Jt Comm J Qual Improv 2000;26(9):547–53.
  117. Freemantle N. Implementation strategies. Fam Pract 2000;17(Suppl 1):S7–10.
  118. Bero LA, Grilli R, Grimshaw JM, Harvey E, Oxman AD, Thomson MA. Closing the gap between research and practice: An overview of systematic reviews of interventions to promote the implementation of research findings. The Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Review Group. BMJ 1998;317(7156):465–68.
  119. Davis DA, Taylor-Vaisey A. Translating guidelines into practice. A systematic review of theoretic concepts, practical experience and research evidence in the adoption of clinical practice guidelines. CMAJ 1997;157(4):408–16.
  120. Oxman AD, Thomson MA, Davis DA, Haynes RB. No magic bullets: A systematic review of 102 trials of interventions to improve professional practice. CMAJ 1995;153(10):1423–31.
  121. Kok G, van den Borne B, Mullen PD. Effectiveness of health education and health promotion: Meta-analyses of effect studies and determinants of effectiveness. Patient Educ Couns 1997;30(1):19–27.
  122. Litt JC. Exploration of the delivery of prevention in the general practice setting. PhD theis. Adelaide: Flinders University, 2007.
  123. van Bokhoven M, Kok G, van der Weijden T. Designing a quality improvement intervention: A systematic approach. Qual Saf Health Care 2003;12(3):215–20.
  124. Grimshaw J, Shirran L, Thomas R, et al. Changing provider behavior: An overview of systematic reviews of interventions. Med Care 2001;39(8 Suppl 2):II2–45.
  125. Berwick D. Disseminating innovations in health care. JAMA 2003;289(15):1969–75.
  126. Al-Balushi S, Sohal AS, Singh PJ, Al Hajri A, Al Farsi YM, Al Abri R. Readiness factors for lean implementation in healthcare settings – A literature review. J Health Organ Manag 2014;28(2):135–53.
  127. Grandes G, Sanchez A, Cortada JM, et al. Is integration of healthy lifestyle promotion into primary care feasible? Discussion and consensus sessions between clinicians and researchers. BMC Health Serv Res 2008;8:213.
  128. Stange K, Goodwin M, Zyzanski S, Dietrich A. Sustainability of a practice-individualized preventive service delivery intervention. Am J Prev Med 2003;25(4):296–300.
  129. Harvey G, Kitson A. Translating evidence into healthcare policy and practice: Single versus multi-faceted implementation strategies – Is there a simple answer to a complex question? Int J Health Policy Manag 2015;4(3):123–26.
  130. Packard T, Shih A. Organizational change tactics: The evidence base in the literature. J Evid Based Soc Work 2014;11(5):498–510.
  131. Flodgren G, Rojas-Reyes MX, Cole N, Foxcroft DR. Effectiveness of organisational infrastructures to promote evidence-based nursing practice. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;(2):CD002212.
  132. Parmelli E, Flodgren G, Schaafsma ME, Baillie N, Beyer FR, Eccles MP. The effectiveness of strategies to change organisational culture to improve healthcare performance. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011;(1):CD008315.
  133. Unverzagt S, Oemler M, Braun K, Klement A. Strategies for guideline implementation in primary care focusing on patients with cardiovascular disease: A systematic review. Fam Pract 2014;31(3):247–66.
  134. Nadeem E, Olin SS, Hill LC, Hoagwood KE, Horwitz SM. Understanding the components of quality improvement collaboratives: A systematic literature review. Milbank Q 2013;91(2):354–94.
  135. Van Cleave J, Kuhlthau KA, Bloom S, et al. Interventions to improve screening and follow-up in primary care: A systematic review of the evidence. Acad Pediatr 2012;12(4):269–82.
  136. Dawda P, Jenkins R, Varnam R. Quality improvement in general practice: An inquiry into the quality of general practice in England. London, UK: The King’s Fund, 2010.
  137. Irwin R, Stokes T, Marshall T. Practice-level quality improvement interventions in primary care: A review of systematic reviews. Prim Health Care Res Dev 2015;16(6):556–77.
  138. Davy C, Bleasel J, Liu H, Tchan M, Ponniah S, Brown A. Factors influencing the implementation of chronic care models: A systematic literature review. BMC Fam Pract 2015;16:102.
  139. Schichtel M, Rose PW, Sellers C. Educational interventions for primary healthcare professionals to promote the early diagnosis of cancer: A systematic review. Educ Prim Care 2013;24(4):274–90.
  140. Wallace J, Byrne C, Clarke M. Making evidence more wanted: A systematic review of facilitators to enhance the uptake of evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Int J Evid Based Healthc 2012;10(4):338–46.
  141. Baskerville NB, Liddy C, Hogg W. Systematic review and meta-analysis of practice facilitation within primary care settings. Ann Fam Med 2012;10(1):63–74.
  142. Wen J, Schulman KA. Can team-based care improve patient satisfaction? A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. PLoS One 2014;9(7):e100603.
  143. Gorin SS, Haggstrom D, Fairfield K, Han P, Krebs P, Clauser SB. Cancer care coordination systematic review and meta-analysis: Twenty-two years of empirical studies. J Clin Oncol 2013;31(15).
  144. Jacobson P. Evidence synthesis for the effectiveness of interprofessional teams in primary care. Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian Health Services Research Foundation, 2012.
  145. Deneckere S, Euwema M, Van Herck P, et al. Care pathways lead to better teamwork: Results of a systematic review. Soc Sci Med 2012;75(2):264–68.
  146. Medves J, Godfrey C, Turner C, et al. Systematic review of practice guideline dissemination and implementation strategies for  healthcare  teams and team-based practice. Int J Evid Based Healthc 2010;8(2):79–89.
  147. Maslin-Prothero SE, Bennion AE. Integrated team working: A literature review. Int J Integr Care 2010;10:e043.
  148. Buljac-Samardzic M, Dekker-van Doorn CM, van Wijngaarden JD, van Wijk KP. Interventions to improve team effectiveness: A systematic review. Health Policy 2010;94(3):183–95.
  149. Zwarenstein M, Reeves S, Barr H, et al. Interprofessional education: Effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009;8(3):CD000072.
  150. Brown VM. Managing patients with hypertension in nurse-led clinics. Nursing 2017;47(4):16–9.
  151. Shackleton N, Jamal F, Viner RM, Dickson K, Patton G, Bonell C. School-based interventions going beyond health education to promote adolescent health: Systematic review of reviews. J Adolesc Health 2016;58(4):382–96.
  152. Swan M, Ferguson S, Chang A, Larson E, Smaldone A.Quality of primary care by advanced practice nurses: A systematic review. Int J Qual Health Care 2015;27(5):396–404.
  153. Baishnab E, Karner C. Primary care based  clinics for asthma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;(4):CD003533.
  154. Maindal HT, Støvring H, Sandbaek A. Effectiveness of the population-based Check your health preventive programme conducted in primary care with 4 years follow-up [the CORE trial]: Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials 2014;15:341.
  155. Krogsbøll LT, Jørgensen KJ, Grønhøj Larsen C, Gøtzsche PC. General health checks in adults for reducing morbidity and mortality from disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;10:CD009009.
  156. Boulware LE, Marinopoulos S, Phillips KA, et al. Systematic review: The value of the periodic health evaluation. Ann Intern Med 2007;146(4):289–300.
  157. Flodgren G, Parmelli E, Doumit G, et al. Local opinion leaders: Effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011;(8):CD000125.
  158. Anderson CA, Titler MG. Development and verification of an agent-based model of opinion leadership. Implement Sci 2014;9:136.
  159. McLean SM, Booth A, Gee M, et al. Appointment reminder systems are effective but not  optimal: Results of a systematic review and evidence synthesis employing realist principles. Patient Prefer Adherence 2016;10:479–99.
  160. McLean S, Gee M, Booth A, et al. Targeting the use of reminders and notifications for uptake by populations (TURNUP): A systematic review and evidence synthesis. Health Services and Delivery Research. Southampton, UK: NIHR Journals Library, 2014.
  161. Lin H, Wu X. Intervention strategies for improving patient adherence to follow-up in the era of mobile information technology: A systematic review and meta- analysis. PLoS One 2014;9(8):e104266.
  162. Kannisto KA, Koivunen MH, Välimäki MA. Use of mobile phone text message reminders in health care services: A narrative literature review. J Med Internet Res 2014;16(10):e222.
  163. Gurol-Urganci I, de Jongh T, Vodopivec-Jamsek V, Atun R, Car J. Mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;(12):CD007458.
  164. Barrio P, Gual A. Patient-centered care interventions for the management of alcohol use disorders: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Patient Prefer Adherence 2016;10:1823–45.
  165. Morton K, Beauchamp M, Prothero A, et al. The effectiveness of motivational interviewing for health behaviour change in primary care settings: A systematic review. Health Psychol Rev 2015;9(2):205–23.
  166. Lindson-Hawley N, Thompson TP, Begh R. Motivational interviewing for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;(3):CD006936.
  167. Ekong G, Kavookjian J. Motivational interviewing and outcomes in adults with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review. Patient Educ Couns 2016;99(6):944–52.
  168. Barnes RD, Ivezaj V. A systematic review of motivational interviewing for weight loss among adults in primary care. Obes Rev 2015;16(4):304–18.
  169. VanBuskirk KA, Wetherell JL. Motivational interviewing with primary care populations: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Behav Med 2014;37(4):768–80.
  170. Jones A, Gladstone BP, Lübeck M, Lindekilde N, Upton D,Vach W. Motivational interventions in the management of HbA1c levels: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Prim Care Diabetes 2014;8(2):91–100.
  171. Lundahl B, Moleni T, Burke BL, et al. Motivational interviewing in medical care settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Patient Educ Couns 2013;93(2):157–68.
  172. Macdonald P, Hibbs R, Corfield F, Treasure J. The use of motivational interviewing in eating disorders: A systematic review. Psychiatry Res 2012;200(1):1–11.
  173. Lai DT, Cahill K, Qin Y, Tang JL. Motivational interviewing for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010;(1):CD006936.
  174. Boehmer KR, Barakat S, Ahn S, Prokop LJ, Erwin PJ, Murad MH. Health coaching interventions for persons with chronic conditions: a systematic review and meta- analysis protocol. Syst Rev 2016;5(1):146.
  175. Kivelä K, Elo S, Kyngäs H, Kääriäinen M. The effects of health coaching on adult patients with chronic diseases: A systematic review. Patient Educ Couns 2014;97(2):147–57.
  176. Ammentorp J, Uhrenfeldt L, Angel F, Ehrensvärd M, Carlsen EB, Kofoed PE. Can life coaching improve health outcomes? – A systematic review of intervention studies. BMC Health Serv Res 2013;13:428.
  177. Wilson EA, Makoul G, Bojarski EA, et al. Comparative analysis of print and multimedia health materials: A review of the literature. Patient Educ Couns 2012;89(1):7–14.
  178. Giguère A, Légaré F, Grimshaw J, et al. Printed educational materials: Effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;10:CD004398.
  179. Clayman ML, Bylund CL, Chewning B, Makoul G. The impact of patient participation in health decisions within
  180. medical encounters: A systematic review. Med Decis Making 2016;36(4):427–52.
  181. Shay LA, Lafata JE. Where is the evidence? A systematic review of shared decision making and patient outcomes. Med Decis Making 2015;35(1):114–31.
  182. Zipkin DA, Umscheid CA, Keating NL, et al. Evidence- based risk communication: A systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2014;161(4):270–80.
  183. Légaré F, Stacey D, Turcotte S, et al. Interventions for improving the adoption of shared decision making by healthcare professionals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;(9):CD006732.
  184. Embuldeniya G, Veinot P, Bell E, et al. The experience and impact of chronic disease peer support interventions: A qualitative synthesis. Patient Educ Couns 2013;92(1):3–12.
  185. Légaré F, Turcotte S, Stacey D, Ratté S, Kryworuchko J, Graham ID. Patients’ perceptions of sharing in decisions: A systematic review of interventions to enhance shared decision making in routine clinical practice. Patient 2012;5(1):1–19.
  186. Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: What does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Soc Sci Med 1997;44(5):681–92.
  187. Pfaeffli Dale L, Dobson R, Whittaker R, Maddison R.The effectiveness of mobile-health behaviour change interventions for cardiovascular disease self-management: A systematic review. Eur J Prev Cardiol 2016;23(8):801–17.
  188. Garabedian LF, Ross-Degnan D, Wharam JF. Mobile phone and smartphone technologies for diabetes care and self-management. Curr Diab Rep 2015;15(12):109.
  189. Jones KR, Lekhak N, Kaewluang N. Using mobile phones and short message service to deliver self-management interventions for chronic conditions: A meta-review. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs 2014;11(2):81–88.
  190. Free C, Phillips G, Watson L, et al. The effectiveness of mobile-health technologies to improve health care service delivery processes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med 2013;10(1):e1001363.
  191. Whittaker R, McRobbie H, Bullen C, Borland R, Rodgers A, Gu Y. Mobile phone-based interventions for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;11:CD006611.
  192. Vodopivec-Jamsek V, de Jongh T, Gurol-Urganci I, Atun R, Car J. Mobile phone messaging for preventive health care. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;12:CD007457.
  193. Massimi A, De Vito C, Brufola I, et al. Are community- based nurse-led self-management support interventions effective in chronic patients? Results of a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2017;12(3):e0173617.
  194. Lovink MH, Persoon A, Koopmans RT, Van Vught AJAH, Schoonhoven L, Laurant MGH. Effects of substituting nurse practitioners, physician assistants or nurses for physicians concerning healthcare for the aging population: A systematic literature review. J Adv Nurs 2017;73(9):2084–102.
  195. Martínez-González NA, Djalali S, Tandjung R, et al. Substitution of physicians by nurses in primary care: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Health Serv Res 2014;14:214.
  196. Laurant M, Reeves D, Hermens R, Braspenning J, Grol R, Sibbald B. Substitution of doctors by nurses in primary care. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005;(2):CD001271.
  197. Seidu S, Walker NS, Bodicoat DH, Davies MJ, Khunti K. A systematic review of interventions targeting primary care or community based professionals on cardio- metabolic risk factor control in people with diabetes. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2016;113:1–13.
  198. Arditi C, Rège-Walther M, Wyatt JC, Durieux P, Burnand B. Computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals; effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;12:CD001175.
  199. Vernon SW, McQueen A, Tiro JA, del Junco DJ. Interventions to promote repeat breast cancer screening with mammography: A systematic review and meta- analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010;102(14):1023–39.
  200. Thomas RE, Russell M, Lorenzetti D. Interventions to increase influenza vaccination rates of those 60 years and older in the community. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010;(9):CD005188.
  201. Flodgren G, Deane K, Dickinson HO, et al. Interventions to change the behaviour of health professionals and the organisation of care to promote weight reduction in overweight and obese people. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010;(3):CD000984.
  202. Ridley J, Ischayek A, Dubey V, Iglar K. Adult health checkup: Update on the Preventive Care Checklist Form©. Can Fam Physician 2016;62(4):307–13.
  203. Mayer DK, Birken SA, Check DK, Chen RC. Summing it up: An integrative review of studies of cancer survivorship care plans (2006–2013). Cancer 2015;121(7):978–96.
  204. Bernat JL. Ethical and quality pitfalls in electronic health records. Neurology 2013;80(11):1057–61.
  205. Berta W, Barnsley J, Bloom J, et al. Enhancing continuity of information: Essential components of consultation reports. Can Fam Physician 2009;55(6):624–25.e1–5.
  206. Milone SD, Milone SL. Evidence-based periodic health examination of adults. Memory aid for primary care physicians. Can Fam Physician 2006;52:40–47.
  207. Dubey V, Mathew R, Iglar K, Moineddin R, Glazier R. Improving preventive service delivery at adult complete health check-ups: The Preventive health Evidence-based Recommendation Form (PERFORM) cluster randomized controlled trial. BMC Fam Pract 2006;7:44.
  208. Cheney C, Ramsdell JW. Effect of medical records’ checklist on implementation of periodic health measures. Am J Med 1987;83(1):129–36.
  209. Jeffery RA, To MJ, Hayduk-Costa G, et al. Interventions to improve adherence to cardiovascular disease guidelines: A systematic review. BMC Fam Pract 2015;16(1):147.
  210. Colquhoun HL, Brehaut JC, Sales A, et al. A systematic review of the use of theory in randomized controlled trials of audit and feedback. Implement Sci 2013;8:66.
  211. Ivers N, Jamtvedt G, Flottorp S, et al. Audit and feedback: Effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;(6):CD000259.
  212. Ivers NM, Grimshaw JM, Jamtvedt G, et al. Growing literature, stagnant science? Systematic review, meta-regression and cumulative analysis of audit and feedback interventions in health care. J Gen Intern Med 2014;29(11):1534–41.
  213. Thistlethwaite JE, Davies D, Ekeocha S, et al. The effectiveness of case-based learning in health professional education. A BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 23. Med Teach 2012;34(6):e421–44.
  214. Murad MH, Coto-Yglesias F, Varkey P,  Prokop LJ, Murad AL. The effectiveness of self-directed learning in health professions education: A systematic review. Med Educ 2010;44(11):1057–68.
  215. Forsetlund L, Bjørndal A, Rashidian A, et al. Continuing education meetings and workshops: Effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009;(2):CD003030.
  216. Institute of Medicine. Measuring the Impact of Interprofessional Education on Collaborative Practice and Patient Outcomes. Measuring the impact of interprofessional education on collaborative practice and patient outcomes. Washington, DC: National Academies Press (US), 2015.
  217. Institute of Medicine. Interprofessional education for collaboration: Learning how to improve health from interprofessional models across the continuum of education to practice: Workshop summary. Washington, DC: National Academies Press (US), 2013.
  218. Bogetz JF, Rassbach CE, Bereknyei S, Mendoza FS, Sanders LM, Braddock CH 3rd. Training health care professionals for 21st-century practice: A systematic review of educational interventions on chronic care. Acad Med 2015;90(11):1561–72.
  219. Stead LF, Hartmann-Boyce J, Perera R, Lancaster T. Telephone counselling for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;(8):CD002850.
  220. Borland R, Segan CJ. The potential of quitlines to increase smoking cessation. Drug Alcohol Rev 2006;25(1):73–78.
  221. Borland R, Balmford J, Bishop N, et al. In-practice management versus quitline referral for enhancing smoking cessation in general practice: A cluster randomized trial. Fam Pract 2008;25(5):382–89.
  222. Perla RJ, Bradbury E, Gunther-Murphy C. Large-scale improvement initiatives in healthcare: A scan of the literature. J Healthc Qual 2013;35(1):30–40
  223. Cleary SM, Molyneux S, Gilson L. Resources, attitudes and culture: An understanding of the factors that influence the functioning of accountability mechanisms in primary health care settings. BMC Health Serv Res 2013;13:320.
  224. Goodson P, Murphy Smith M, Evans A, Meyer B, Gottlieb NH. Maintaining prevention in practice: Survival of PPIP in primary care settings. Put Prevention Into Practice. Am J Prev Med 2001;20(3):184–89.
  225. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. BreastScreen Australia monitoring report 2014–2015. Cancer series no. 106. Cat. no. CAN 105. Canberra: AIHW, 2017. [Accessed 9 March 2018].
  226. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Cervical screening in Australia 2014–2015. CAN 104. Canberra: AIHW, 2017. [Accessed 9 March 2018].
  227. Munro A, Pavicic H, Leung Y, et al. The role of general practitioners in the continued success of the National Cervical Screening Program. Aust Fam Physician 2014;43(5):293–96.
  228. Dawson G, Crane M, Lyons C, et al. General practitioners’ perceptions of population based bowel screening and their influence on practice: A qualitative study. BMC Fam Pract 2017;18(1):36.