Umeå University's logo

Background: Lifestyle habits like tobacco use, hazardous use of alcohol, unhealthy eating habits and insufficient physical activity are risk factors for developing non-communicable diseases, which are the leading, global causes of death. Furthermore, ill health and chronic diseases are costly and put an increased burden on societies and health systems.  In order to address this situation, governmental bodies and organizations’ have encouraged healthcare providers to reorient the focus of healthcare and undertake effective interventions that support patients to engage in healthy lifestyle habits. In Sweden, national clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on lifestyle interventions were released in 2011. However, the challenges of changing clinical practice and introducing guidelines are well documented, and health interventions face particular difficulties. The overall purpose of this thesis is to contribute towards a better understanding of the complexities of shifting primary health care to become more health oriented, and to explore the implementation environment and its effect on lifestyle intervention CPGs. The specific aims are to investigate how implementation challenges were addressed during the guideline development process (Study I), to investigate several dimensions of readiness for implementing lifestyle intervention guidelines, including aspects of the intervention and the intervention context (Study II), to explore the extent to which health care professionals are working with lifestyle interventions in primary health care, and to describe and develop a baseline measure of professional knowledge, attitudes and perceived organizational support for lifestyle interventions (Study III), and to assess the progress of implementing lifestyle interventions in primary care settings, as  well as investigate the uptake and usage of the CPGs in clinical practice (Study IV).

Methods and results: Interviews were conducted with national guideline-developers (n=7). They were aware of numerous implementation challenges, and applied strategies and ways to address them during the guideline development process. The strategies adhered to four themes: (a) broad agreements and consensus about scope and purpose, (b) systematic and active involvement of stakeholders, (c) formalized and structured development procedures, and (d) openness and transparent development procedures. At the same time, the CPGs for lifestyle interventions challenged the development-model at the National Board of Health and Welfare (NBHW) because of their preventive and non-disease specific focus (I).

A multiple case study was also conducted, using a mixed methods approach to gather data from key organizational individuals that were accountable for planning the implementation of CPGs (n=10), as well as health professionals and managers (n=340). Analysis of this data revealed that conditions for change were favorable in the two organizations that served as case studies, especially concerning change focus (health orientation) and the specific intervention (national guidelines on lifestyle interventions). Somewhat limited support was found for change and learning, and change format (national guidelines in general). Furthermore, factors in the outer context were found to influence the priority and timing of the intervention, as well as considerable inconsistencies across the professional groups (II). A cross-sectional study among physicians and nurses (n=315) in Swedish primary healthcare showed that healthcare professionals have a largely positive attitude and thorough overall knowledge of lifestyle intervention methods. However, both the level of knowledge and the involvement in patients’ lifestyle change, differed between professional groups. Organizational support like CPGs and the development of primary health care (PHC) collaborations with other stakeholders were identified as potential strategies for enhancing the implementation of lifestyle interventions in PHC (III).

In addition to interviews and case studies, a longitudinal survey among health professionals (n=150; n=73) demonstrated that their use of methods to encourage patients to reduce or eliminate tobacco or alcohol use, had increased. The survey also indicated that nurses had increased the extent to which they addressed all four lifestyle habits. The progress of the implementation of CPGs on lifestyle interventions in PHC was somewhat limited, and important differences in physicians and nurses’ attitudes, as well as their use of the guidelines, were found (IV).

Conclusions: Health orientation differs in many ways from more traditional fields in medicine. To strengthen the implementation of this very important (but not “urgent”) field in health care, it needs, first of all, to be prioritized at all levels! The results of the studies demonstrate relatively slow adoption of lifestyle intervention CPGs in clinical practice, and indicate room for improvement. The findings of this thesis can inform healthcare policy and research on further development of the health orientation perspective, as well as on the challenges of implementing CPGs on lifestyle interventions in primary care. In summary, this thesis presents important lessons learned regarding health orientation - from the development of CPGs in the field, via assessing healthcare organizations’ readiness to change and health professionals’ attitudes to methods to support patients with lifestyle changes.

Background: Implementation of interventions concerning prevention and health promotion in health care has faced particular challenges resulting in a low frequency and quality of these services. In November 2011, the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare released national clinical practice guidelines to counteract patients’ unhealthy lifestyle habits. Drawing on the results of a previous study as a point of departure, the aim of this two-year follow up was to assess the progress of work with lifestyle interventions in primary healthcare as well as the uptake and usage of the new guidelines on lifestyle interventions in clinical practice.

Methods: Longitudinal study among health professionals with survey at baseline and 2 years later. Development over time and differences between professional groups were calculated with Pearson chi-square test.

Results: Eighteen percent of the physicians reported to use the clinical practice guidelines, compared to 58% of the nurses. Nurses were also more likely to consider them as a support in their work than physicians did. Over time, health professionals usage of methods to change patients’ tobacco habits and hazardous use of alcohol had increased, and the nurses worked to a higher extent than before with all four lifestyles. Knowledge on methods for lifestyle change was generally high; however, there was room for improvement concerning methods on alcohol, unhealthy eating and counselling. Forty-one percent reported to possess thorough knowledge of counselling skills.

Conclusions: Even if the uptake and usage of the CPGs on lifestyle interventions so far is low, the participants reported more frequent counselling on patients’ lifestyle changes concerning use of tobacco and hazardous use of alcohol. However, these findings should be evaluated acknowledging the possibility of selection bias in favour of health promotion and lifestyle guidance, and the loss of one study site in the follow up. Furthermore, this study indicates important differences in physicians and nurses’ attitudes to and use of the guidelines, where the nurses reported working to a higher extent with all four lifestyles compared to the first study. These findings suggest further investigations on the implementation process in clinical practice, and the physicians’ uptake and use of the CPGs.

Clinical practice guidelines are frequently developed to enhance quality in health care. However implementation is complex and often only partially completed. Our aim was to investigate and to analyze factors that are important to the development and implementation of clinical practice guidelines. We systematically searched for relevant papers in Pubmed. The results indicate that successful development of guidelines often is characterized by its use of multidisciplinary development groups and systematic literature review methods. Implementation of guidelines requires a planned multifaceted strategy based on analysis of organizational and individual readiness, as well as on the availability of necessary resources and a supportive leadership.

BACKGROUND: Interventions that support patient efforts at lifestyle changes that reduce tobacco use, hazardous use of alcohol, unhealthy eating habits and insufficient physical activity represent important areas of development for health care. Current research shows that it is challenging to reorient health care toward health promotion. The aim of this study was to explore the extent of health care professional work with lifestyle interventions in Swedish primary health care, and to describe professional knowledge, attitudes and perceived organizational support for lifestyle interventions.

METHODS: The study is based on a cross-sectional Web-based survey directed at general practitioners, other physicians, residents, public health nurses and registered nurses (n = 315) in primary health care.

RESULTS: Fifty-nine percent of the participants indicated that lifestyle interventions were a substantial part of their duties. A majority (77%) would like to work more with patient lifestyles. Health professionals generally reported a thorough knowledge of lifestyle intervention methods for disease prevention. Significant differences between professional groups were found with regard to specific knowledge and extent of work with lifestyle interventions. Alcohol was the least addressed lifestyle habit. Management was supportive, but structures to sustain work with lifestyle interventions were scarce, and a need for national guidelines was identified.

CONCLUSIONS: Health professionals reported thorough knowledge and positive attitudes toward lifestyle interventions. When planning for further implementation of lifestyle interventions in primary health care, differences between professional groups in knowledge, extent of work with promotion of healthy lifestyles and lifestyle issues and provision of organizational support such as national guidelines should be considered.

BackgroundMany of the world¿s life threatening diseases (e.g. cancer, heart disease, stroke) could be prevented by eliminating life-style habits such as tobacco use, unhealthy diet, physical inactivity and excessive alcohol use. Incorporating evidence-based research on methods to change unhealthy lifestyle habits in clinical practice would be equally valuable. However gaps between guideline development and implementation are well documented, with implications for health care quality, safety and effectiveness. The development phase of guidelines has been shown to be important both for the quality in guideline content and for the success of implementation. There are, however, indications that guidelines related to general disease prevention methods encounter specific barriers compared to guidelines that are diagnosis-specific. In 2011 the Swedish National board for Health and Welfare launched guidelines with a preventive scope. The aim of this study was to investigate how implementation challenges were addressed during the development process of these disease preventive guidelines.MethodsSeven semi-structured interviews were conducted with members of the guideline development management group. Archival data detailing the guideline development process were also collected and used in the analysis. Qualitative data were analysed using content analysis as the analytical framework.ResultsThe study identified several strategies and approaches that were used to address implementation challenges during guideline development. Four themes emerged from the analysis: broad agreements and consensus about scope and purpose; a formalized and structured development procedure; systematic and active involvement of stakeholders; and openness and transparency in the specific guideline development procedure. Additional factors concerning the scope of prevention and the work environment of guideline developers were perceived to influence the possibilities to address implementation issues.ConclusionsThis case study provides examples of how guideline developers perceive and approach the issue of implementation during the development and early launch of prevention guidelines. Models for guideline development could benefit from an initial assessment of how the guideline topic, its target context and stakeholders will affect the upcoming implementation.