Cited by 368Health Policy Implementation ScienceHealth Sciences Research and EducationClinical practice guidelines implementation

Are multifaceted interventions more effective than single-component interventions in changing health-care professionals' behaviours? An overview of systematic reviews

Open access
Squires, Janet E, Sullivan, Katrina, Eccles, Martin P, Worswick, Julia, Grimshaw, Jeremy M·2014·Implementation Science

Abstract

BACKGROUND: One of the greatest challenges in healthcare is how to best translate research evidence into clinical practice, which includes how to change health-care professionals' behaviours. A commonly held view is that multifaceted interventions are more effective than single-component interventions. The purpose of this study was to conduct an overview of systematic reviews to evaluate the effectiveness of multifaceted interventions in comparison to single-component interventions in changing health-care professionals' behaviour in clinical settings. METHODS: The Rx for Change database, which consists of quality-appraised systematic reviews of interventions to change health-care professional behaviour, was used to identify systematic reviews for the overview. Dual, independent screening and data extraction was conducted. Included reviews used three different approaches (of varying methodological robustness) to evaluate the effectiveness of multifaceted interventions: (1) effect size/dose-response statistical analyses, (2) direct (non-statistical) comparisons of multifaceted to single interventions and (3) indirect comparisons of multifaceted to single interventions. RESULTS: Twenty-five reviews were included in the overview. Three reviews provided effect size/dose-response statistical analyses of the effectiveness of multifaceted interventions; no statistical evidence of a relationship between the number of intervention components and the effect size was found. Eight reviews reported direct (non-statistical) comparisons of multifaceted to single-component interventions; four of these reviews found multifaceted interventions to be generally effective compared to single interventions, while the remaining four reviews found that multifaceted interventions had either mixed effects or were generally ineffective compared to single interventions. Twenty-three reviews indirectly compared the effectiveness of multifaceted to single interventions; nine of which also reported either a statistical (dose-response) analysis (N = 2) or a non-statistical direct comparison (N = 7). The majority (N = 15) of reviews reporting indirect comparisons of multifaceted to single interventions showed similar effectiveness for multifaceted and single interventions when compared to controls. Of the remaining eight reviews, six found single interventions to be generally effective while multifaceted had mixed effectiveness. CONCLUSION: This overview of systematic reviews offers no compelling evidence that multifaceted interventions are more effective than single-component interventions.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s13012-014-0152-6

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 43 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [2]Davies H Powell A Rushmer R Healthcare Professionals’ Views on Clinician Engagement in Quality Improvement: a Literature Review 2007 London The Health Foundation

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Squires, J. E., Sullivan, K., Eccles, M. P., Worswick, J., & Grimshaw, J. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
  • Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (CA)
  • Newcastle University (GB)
  • Cochrane Canada (CA)
Corresponding author
Squires, Janet E
Venue
Implementation Science
Published
2014-10-06
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
152-152
ISSN
1748-5908 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2140663693
Cited by
368
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 50 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 31 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 37 · 2014: 2
FWCI
5.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Implementation Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • uO Research (University of Ottawa) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity) (cc-by)
Funders
Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Keywords
multicomponent intervention, clinical practice change, evidence-to-practice translation, intervention effectiveness, dose-response relationship, indirect comparison
MeSH terms
Humans, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Research Design, Translational Research, Biomedical

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review