Lisa V. Kalman

Primary immunodeficiency (PI) diseases are a group of primarily single-gene disorders of the immune system. Approximately 100 separate PI diseases have been described, but <20 probably account for >90% of cases. Although diverse, PI diseases share the common feature of susceptibility to infection and result in substantial morbidity and shortened life spans. Most important, prompt diagnosis and treatment can now lead to life-saving treatment and result in marked improvements in the quality and length of life for persons with PI diseases. In November 2001, a workshop was convened by CDC in Atlanta, Georgia, to discuss ways to improve health outcomes among persons with PI disease. A multidisciplinary panel of persons knowledgeable in PI diseases and public health met to identify and discuss public health strategies that can be applied to PI diseases and possibly for other genetic disorders. A systematic assessment based on the established public health framework was applied to the growing group of PI diseases, whose diverse genetic mutations span multiple components of the immune system but all lead to increased incidence and severity of infections. During the meeting, specialists in clinical immunology, public health, genetics, pediatrics, health communication, and ethics from state and federal agencies, academic centers, professional organizations, and advocacy foundations discussed the four components of the public health framework as they relate to PI diseases. These four components include 1) public health assessment (application of traditional public health methods to assess the occurrence and impact of PI diseases on communities); 2) population-based interventions (development, implementation, and evaluation of screening tests administered to newborns and clinical algorithms for early recognition of symptomatic persons to facilitate the earliest possible diagnosis and treatment for PI diseases); 3) evaluation of screening and diagnostic tools (to ensure their quality and appropriateness for identification of patients with PI diseases); and 4) communication (communication with and information dissemination to health-care providers and the public to facilitate prompt and appropriate diagnosis and intervention). The working group's deliberations focused on challenges and opportunities, priority research questions, and recommendations for future action for these four components. These recommendations, developed by workshop participants, will be useful to medical and public health professionals who are evaluating methods to increase recognition of PI diseases and other genetic disorders.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines aim to support evidence-informed practice but are inconsistently used without implementation strategies. Our prior scoping review revealed that guideline implementation interventions were not selected and tailored based on processes known to enhance guideline uptake and impact. The purpose of this study was to update the prior scoping review. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL, Scopus, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for studies published from 2014 to January 2021 that evaluated guideline implementation interventions. We screened studies in triplicate and extracted data in duplicate. We reported study and intervention characteristics and studies that achieved impact with summary statistics. RESULTS: We included 118 studies that implemented guidelines on 16 clinical topics. With regard to implementation planning, 21% of studies referred to theories or frameworks, 50% pre-identified implementation barriers, and 36% engaged stakeholders in selecting or tailoring interventions. Studies that employed frameworks (n=25) most often used the theoretical domains framework (28%) or social cognitive theory (28%). Those that pre-identified barriers (n=59) most often consulted literature (60%). Those that engaged stakeholders (n=42) most often consulted healthcare professionals (79%). Common interventions included educating professionals about guidelines (44%) and information systems/technology (41%). Most studies employed multi-faceted interventions (75%). A total of 97 (82%) studies achieved impact (improvements in one or more reported outcomes) including 10 (40% of 25) studies that employed frameworks, 28 (47.45% of 59) studies that pre-identified barriers, 22 (52.38% of 42) studies that engaged stakeholders, and 21 (70% of 30) studies that employed single interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to our prior review, this review found that more studies used processes to select and tailor interventions, and a wider array of types of interventions across the Mazza taxonomy. Given that most studies achieved impact, this might reinforce the need for implementation planning. However, even studies that did not plan implementation achieved impact. Similarly, even single interventions achieved impact. Thus, a future systematic review based on this data is warranted to establish if the use of frameworks, barrier identification, stakeholder engagement, and multi-faceted interventions are associated with impact. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol was registered with Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/4nxpr ) and published in JBI Evidence Synthesis.