Table 2

Characteristics of the included studies: interventions

Study and countrySettingEducational programmesGuidelines and protocolsChanges to fundingRemindersDecision toolsAudit and feedback
Single-mechanism interventions
 Adlan et al,22 UKHospitalX
 Berwick and Coltin,17 USA*Primary careXXX
 Chu et al,24 AustraliaHospitalX
 Cipullo and Mostoufizadeh,19 USAHospitalX
 Daucourt et al,25 France*HospitalXX
 Emerson and Emerson,27 USAPrimary careX
 Feldkamp and Carey,28 USAHospitalX
 Gama et al,18 UKHospitalX
 Grivell et al,29 AustraliaHospitalX
 Horn et al,45 USAPrimary careX
 Larsson et al,30 Mindemark and Larsson31 (follow-up), SwedenPrimary careX
 Schectman et al,33 USAPrimary careX
 Tierney et al,35 USAPrimary careX
 Thomas et al,10 UK*Primary careX
Multifaceted interventions
 Baker et al,23 UKPrimary careXX
 Daucourt et al,25 France*HospitalXX
 Dowling et al,26 USAPrimary careXX
 Hardwick et al,44 CanadaPrimary careXX
 Nightingale et al,32 UKHospitalXXX
 Rhyne and Gehlbach,43 USAPrimary careXX
 Schectman et al,33 USA*Primary careXXX
 Stuart et al,34 AustraliaHospitalXXX
 Thomas et al,10 UK*Primary careXX
 Tomlin et al,36 New ZealandPrimary careXXX
 Toubert et al,37 FranceHospitalXX
 van Gend et al,38 The NetherlandsPrimary careXX
 van Walraven et al,39 CanadaPrimary careXXX
 Vidal-Trécan et al,40 FranceHospitalXXX
 Willis and Datta,41 UKHospitalXX
 Wong et al,42 USAHospitalXX
  • XX—two independent interventions of the same type.

  • *Study comparing directly two alternative interventions (Schectman et al33 had a non-comparative single-intervention design in its first phase and a multifaceted comparative design in the second phase; Thomas et al10 compared a single-mechanism (reminders) vs multifaceted (feedback plus reminders) interventions; Daucourt et al25 compared two single-mechanism interventions with their combination and usual practice defined as simple diffusion of guidelines).