Use of interrupted time series methods in the evaluation of health system quality improvement interventions: a methodological systematic review

Background When randomisation is not possible, interrupted time series (ITS) design has increasingly been advocated as a more robust design to evaluating health system quality improvement (QI) interventions given its ability to control for common biases in healthcare QI. However, there is a potentia...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Larry D Lynd, Mohammad Karamouzian, Michael R Law, Hinda Ruton, Celestin Hategeka
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMJ Publishing Group 2020-10-01
Series:BMJ Global Health
Online Access:https://gh.bmj.com/content/5/10/e003567.full
id doaj-00cdf382f7194bc1becb2c8696192daa
record_format Article
spelling doaj-00cdf382f7194bc1becb2c8696192daa2021-01-21T22:30:20ZengBMJ Publishing GroupBMJ Global Health2059-79082020-10-0151010.1136/bmjgh-2020-003567Use of interrupted time series methods in the evaluation of health system quality improvement interventions: a methodological systematic reviewLarry D Lynd0Mohammad Karamouzian1Michael R Law2Hinda Ruton3Celestin Hategeka4Collaboration for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada1BC Center on Substance Use, Vancouver, Canada2 Centre for Health Services and Policy Research, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada 2 Centre for Health Services and Policy Research, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USABackground When randomisation is not possible, interrupted time series (ITS) design has increasingly been advocated as a more robust design to evaluating health system quality improvement (QI) interventions given its ability to control for common biases in healthcare QI. However, there is a potential risk of producing misleading results when this rather robust design is not used appropriately. We performed a methodological systematic review of the literature to investigate the extent to which the use of ITS has followed best practice standards and recommendations in the evaluation of QI interventions.Methods We searched multiple databases from inception to June 2018 to identify QI intervention studies that were evaluated using ITS. There was no restriction on date, language and participants. Data were synthesised narratively using appropriate descriptive statistics. The risk of bias for ITS studies was assessed using the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care standard criteria. The systematic review protocol was registered in PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42018094427).Results Of 4061 potential studies and 2028 unique records screened for inclusion, 120 eligible studies assessed eight QI strategies and were from 25 countries. Most studies were published since 2010 (86.7%), reported data using monthly interval (71.4%), used ITS without a control (81%) and modelled data using segmented regression (62.5%). Autocorrelation was considered in 55% of studies, seasonality in 20.8% and non-stationarity in 8.3%. Only 49.2% of studies specified the ITS impact model. The risk of bias was high or very high in 72.5% of included studies and did not change significantly over time.Conclusions The use of ITS in the evaluation of health system QI interventions has increased considerably over the past decade. However, variations in methodological considerations and reporting of ITS in QI remain a concern, warranting a need to develop and reinforce formal reporting guidelines to improve its application in the evaluation of health system QI interventions.https://gh.bmj.com/content/5/10/e003567.full
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Larry D Lynd
Mohammad Karamouzian
Michael R Law
Hinda Ruton
Celestin Hategeka
spellingShingle Larry D Lynd
Mohammad Karamouzian
Michael R Law
Hinda Ruton
Celestin Hategeka
Use of interrupted time series methods in the evaluation of health system quality improvement interventions: a methodological systematic review
BMJ Global Health
author_facet Larry D Lynd
Mohammad Karamouzian
Michael R Law
Hinda Ruton
Celestin Hategeka
author_sort Larry D Lynd
title Use of interrupted time series methods in the evaluation of health system quality improvement interventions: a methodological systematic review
title_short Use of interrupted time series methods in the evaluation of health system quality improvement interventions: a methodological systematic review
title_full Use of interrupted time series methods in the evaluation of health system quality improvement interventions: a methodological systematic review
title_fullStr Use of interrupted time series methods in the evaluation of health system quality improvement interventions: a methodological systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Use of interrupted time series methods in the evaluation of health system quality improvement interventions: a methodological systematic review
title_sort use of interrupted time series methods in the evaluation of health system quality improvement interventions: a methodological systematic review
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
series BMJ Global Health
issn 2059-7908
publishDate 2020-10-01
description Background When randomisation is not possible, interrupted time series (ITS) design has increasingly been advocated as a more robust design to evaluating health system quality improvement (QI) interventions given its ability to control for common biases in healthcare QI. However, there is a potential risk of producing misleading results when this rather robust design is not used appropriately. We performed a methodological systematic review of the literature to investigate the extent to which the use of ITS has followed best practice standards and recommendations in the evaluation of QI interventions.Methods We searched multiple databases from inception to June 2018 to identify QI intervention studies that were evaluated using ITS. There was no restriction on date, language and participants. Data were synthesised narratively using appropriate descriptive statistics. The risk of bias for ITS studies was assessed using the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care standard criteria. The systematic review protocol was registered in PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42018094427).Results Of 4061 potential studies and 2028 unique records screened for inclusion, 120 eligible studies assessed eight QI strategies and were from 25 countries. Most studies were published since 2010 (86.7%), reported data using monthly interval (71.4%), used ITS without a control (81%) and modelled data using segmented regression (62.5%). Autocorrelation was considered in 55% of studies, seasonality in 20.8% and non-stationarity in 8.3%. Only 49.2% of studies specified the ITS impact model. The risk of bias was high or very high in 72.5% of included studies and did not change significantly over time.Conclusions The use of ITS in the evaluation of health system QI interventions has increased considerably over the past decade. However, variations in methodological considerations and reporting of ITS in QI remain a concern, warranting a need to develop and reinforce formal reporting guidelines to improve its application in the evaluation of health system QI interventions.
url https://gh.bmj.com/content/5/10/e003567.full
work_keys_str_mv AT larrydlynd useofinterruptedtimeseriesmethodsintheevaluationofhealthsystemqualityimprovementinterventionsamethodologicalsystematicreview
AT mohammadkaramouzian useofinterruptedtimeseriesmethodsintheevaluationofhealthsystemqualityimprovementinterventionsamethodologicalsystematicreview
AT michaelrlaw useofinterruptedtimeseriesmethodsintheevaluationofhealthsystemqualityimprovementinterventionsamethodologicalsystematicreview
AT hindaruton useofinterruptedtimeseriesmethodsintheevaluationofhealthsystemqualityimprovementinterventionsamethodologicalsystematicreview
AT celestinhategeka useofinterruptedtimeseriesmethodsintheevaluationofhealthsystemqualityimprovementinterventionsamethodologicalsystematicreview
_version_ 1724329668806443008