Abstract:Executive Summary Background Integrated Care Pathways (ICPs) are management technologies which formalise multi‐disciplinary team‐working and enable professionals to examine and address how they articulate their respective roles, responsibilities and activities. They map out a patient's journey and aim to have: 'the right people, doing the right things, in the right order, at the right time, in the right place, with the right outcome'. Initially introduced into the health care context in the 1980s in the US, enthusiasm for ICPs now extends across the world. They have been promoted as a means to realise: evidence based practice, clinical governance, continuity of care, patient empowerment, efficiency gains, service re‐engineering, role realignment and staff education. While ICPs are now being developed and implemented across international health care arena, evidence to support their use is equivocal and understanding of their 'active ingredients' is poor. Reviews of evidence of ICP effectiveness have focused on their use in specific patient populations. However, ICPs are 'complex interventions' and are increasingly being implemented for a variety of purposes in a range of organisational contexts. Identification of the circumstances in which ICPs are effective is the first step towards developing hypotheses about their active ingredients and the generative mechanisms by which they have their effects. This review was designed to address a slightly different set of questions to those that typify systematic reviews of ICP effectiveness. Rather than simply asking: 'Are ICPs effective?', our concern was to identify the circumstances in which ICPs are effective, for whom and in what contexts. In addition to identifying evidence of ICP effectiveness, the review therefore required attention to the contexts in which ICPs are utilised, the purposes to which they are put and the factors critical to their success. In framing the review in this way we are drawing on the insights afforded by Pawson and Tilley's realistic evaluation methodology. The underlying rationale for this approach is that if we know and understand how different interventions produce varying effects in different circumstances, we are better able to decide what policies/services to implement in what conditions. Objectives To identify the purposes for which ICPs are effective, for whom and in what contexts; To identify the purposes for which ICPs are not effective, for whom and in what contexts; To produce recommendations on how ICPs should be used in the full range of health care settings. Inclusion Criteria Types of participants ‐ The review focused on adults and children that accessed health care settings in which ICPs are used. Types of intervention(s)/phenomena of interest ‐ For the purposes of the review, the ICP had to meet the defining characteristics set by the European Pathway Association (EPA): An explicit statement of the goals and key elements of care based on evidence, best practice and patient expectations; Facilitation of communication, coordination of roles, and sequencing of activities of the multidisciplinary care team, patients and their relatives; The documentation, monitoring, and evaluation of variances and outcomes; The identification of the appropriate resources. Here multidisciplinary is taken to refer to the involvement of two or more disciplines. Types of outcomes ‐ Outcome measures were determined by the purposes of the studies selected for review and the type of study participant. Specific clinical outcomes were determined by the group of patients for which the ICP was developed. Types of studies ‐ To address the aims of the review it was necessary to examine evidence of ICP effectiveness across the full spectrum of contexts in which they are in use. In order to keep the study to a manageable scale we limited its scope to randomised controlled trials (RCTs). All RCTs reported between 1980 and 2008 (March) were included in the review. The search was restricted to publications after 1980 coinciding with the emergence of ICPs in the health care context. Non‐English language studies were considered for inclusion based on the English language abstract where this was available. Papers were included if an English, German or French translation was available. Exclusion Criteria The review excluded studies that:Did not meet the definition of ICPs utilised for the purposes of the review;Evaluated ICPs as part of a wider service development and where the effects of the ICP were indistinguishable from the overall quality improvement programme;Where the ICP was not evaluated in real‐life healthcare settings (i.e. where the ICP was implemented by research nurses who were additional to normal staffing levels). Search strategy The strategy consisted of high precision MeSH and non‐MeSH index terms and keywords to ensure that all relevant material was captured (Appendix I). To avoid any potential replication, initial searches of the Joanna Briggs Institute for Evidence Based Nursing and Midwifery and Cochrane Library databases were conducted to establish that no other systematic reviews existed or were currently in progress. Following these initial enquiries a three step search strategy was designed to identify both published and unpublished studies. Stage one involved searching online databases using preliminary keywords, stage two involved using additional search words identified in the title or abstracts found in stage one and stage three involved hand searches of reference lists, bibliographies and key journals including the Journal of Integrated Care Pathways and International Journal of Integrated Care. Data collection Our search strategy located 4055 papers, of which 31 were retrieved for further evaluation. We critically appraised 9 papers, representing 7 studies. These studies were appraised for methodological quality using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Experimental Studies (See Appendix II). This appraisal focused specifically upon the reliability and validity of the study method and findings. Two reviewers independently assessed all of the included studies. In cases where reviewers could not reach an agreement a third reviewer was consulted. If disagreement was due to a lack of information then the study authors were contacted for clarification. Following the process of critical appraisal, 9 papers which represents 7 studies, were considered to be of a high enough quality to proceed to data extraction. Data Extraction As the aim of the review was to capture information on context as well as effectiveness, a bespoke data extraction tool was developed. The tool drew on the information included in the JBI extraction sheet for experimental studies and also incorporated specific information and issues relevant to the purpose of the review including aspects of ICP purpose, information on context and critical success factors (Appendix III). Data synthesis Given the heterogeneity of the included studies meta‐analysis and/or qualitative synthesis was not possible. A narrative summary of the study findings is therefore presented. Results When are ICPs effective, for whom and in what circumstances? Based on the evidence considered in this review, we conclude that:For relatively predictable trajectories of care ICPs can be effective in supporting proactive care management and ensuring that patients receive relevant clinical interventions and/or assessments in a timely manner. This can lead to improvements in service quality and service efficiency without adverse consequences for patients.ICPs are an effective mechanism for promoting adherence to guidelines or treatment protocols thereby reducing variation in practice.ICPs can be effective in improving documentation of treatment goals, documentation of communication with patients, carers and health professionals.ICPs can be effective in improving physician agreement about treatment options.ICPs can be effective in supporting decision‐making when they incorporate a decision‐aide.The evidence considered in this review indicates that ICPs may be particularly effective in changing professional behaviours in the desired direction, where there is scope for improvement or where roles are new.Even in contexts in which health professionals are already experienced with a particular pathway, ICP use brings additional beneficial effects in directing professional practice in the desired direction. When are ICPs not effective, for whom and in what circumstances? Based on the evidence considered in this review we conclude that:ICPs may be less effective in bringing about service quality and efficiency gains in variable patient trajectories.ICPs may be less effective in bringing about quality improvements in circumstances in which services are already based on best evidence and multidisciplinary working is well‐established.Depending on their purpose, the benefits of ICPs may be greater for certain patient sub‐groups than others.We do not know whether the costs of ICP development and implementation are justified by any of their reported benefits.ICPs may need supporting mechanisms to underpin their implementation and ensure their adoption in practice, particularly in circumstances in which ICP use is a significant change in organisational culture.ICP documentation can introduce scope for new kinds of error. What are the active ingredients of ICPs and the generative mechanisms through which they have their effects? Active Ingredients ‐ We have argued that ICPs are a classic example of a complex intervention. That is they comprise 'a number of separate elements which seem essential to the proper functioning of the intervention although the "active ingredient" of the intervention that is effective is difficult to specify'. None of the studies included in the review were underpinned by explicit theories of ICPs' active ingredients or their generative effects. Moreover, the information provided on ICP development and implementation processes was varied and in no case was any evidence provided to enable the role of these components of the intervention to be assessed. The interventions described by the studies in the review varied in terms of their key components (Appendix IV). Generative Mechanisms ‐ Although none of the studies explicitly address the question of generative mechanisms, in several cases it was possible to make inferences about authors' implicit assumptions, based on the discussion sections of the papers (Appendix V). On the basis of the evidence considered in the review we suggest that ICPs can be considered as having a multiple role as directing, coordinating, organising, decision‐making, and accumulating devices. In addition, because ICPs accumulate information, it seems reasonable to infer that they also function as 'distributing devices' by circulating information to users of the pathway, although no definitive evidence is provided in the studies reviewed to support this assertion. Conclusions Our review indicates that ICPs can have positive effects on service quality and efficiency as a result of their functions. They are effective in supporting the timely implementation of clinical interventions and the mobilisation of resources around the patient without incurring additional increases in length of stay. They also have value in supporting implementation of best practice guidelines and protocols by translating these into a format which is suitable for daily use by busy health professionals, thereby improving inter and intra‐professional consensus and reducing unacceptable variations in clinical practice. Because they function as accumulating and distributing devices ICPs may also bring about improvements in documentation, which in turn augments their coordinating effects. They provide a focal point of reference ‐ a common resource ‐ to which various members can refer in order to understand where their role fits into the larger whole and determine what actions are necessary and when. Implications for practice Recommendation 1: Given the costs of their development, service providers should restrict ICP use to those areas of service provision where there are clearly identified deficiencies in existing care provision and/or where change is required. Recommendation 2: Prior to ICP development, developers should seek to specify how they wish to change practice, and which of the potential active ingredients of ICPs are necessary for this purpose. Recommendation 3: The evidence suggests that the ICP will change practice. It is imperative therefore, that the directions for action embedded in the tool are based on best practice or evidence. Recommendation 4: ICPs can be usefully deployed to make best practice guidelines available to staff in a form that is useable in daily practice. Recommendation 5: In cases where trajectories of care are more variable ICPs need to have greater degrees of in‐built flexibility. Moreover, it is important that staff are supported in exercising professional judgement in those cases when adherence to the pathway is not in the individual patient's interest. Recommendation 6: ICP developers should consider carefully the patient population to whom the ICP applies and identify any sub‐groups for whom its use may not be appropriate. Implications for research Recommendation 1: Primary research is necessary in order to provide stronger evidence of the active ingredients of ICPs, their generative mechanisms and inter‐relationships. Recommendation 2: Evaluations of ICPs should specify the ingredients of the intervention, including processes to support development, implementation and sustainability as well as the detail of the ICP artefact itself. Recommendation 3: Evaluations of ICPs need to be underpinned by clarity as to the purposes of the intervention. Recommendation 4: Evaluations of ICPs must include theoretically informed outcome and process measures which take into account the perspective of all relevant stakeholders and the wider system effects of the intervention. Recommendation 5: Evaluations of ICPs should include theoretically informed process outcomes in order to develop understanding of ICP use in practice so that the reasons for behavioural change or its absence are understood. Recommendation 6: Evaluations of ICPs should provide adequate information on the 'control'. Recommendation 7: Evaluations of ICPs should provide adequate information on the local context, taking care to identify critical success factors. Recommendation 8: It is unlikely that ICPs will work for all purposes and in all contexts. Researchers should aim to produce realistic evaluations of ICPs which seek to develop an explanation (and therefore a theory) about how the intervention in question works in particular situations/contexts, by exploring the relationship between context, mechanism and outcome.

Abstract:This co‐registered Cochrane and Campbell systematic review compares the effectiveness of parent‐infant psychotherapy (PIP) in improving the mental health of parents, the parent‐infant relationship and infant emotional wellbeing with that of no treatment, treatment as usual and alternative treatments. The review summarises findings from eight randomised controlled trials (RCTs), with a total of 846 participants. Compared with no treatment or treatment‐as‐usual, PIP participants show an increase in the number of infants securely attached; fewer infants with an avoidant or disorganised attachment style; and more infants moving from insecure to secure attachment. This was maintained at follow up. PIP is neither more nor less effective than no treatment or treatment‐as‐usual in improving maternal mental health, and reflective functioning; infant stress and development; or the quality of the mother‐infant interaction. Parent‐infant psychotherapy (PIP) is a dyadic intervention that works with parent and infant together, with the aim of improving the parent‐infant relationship and promoting infant attachment and optimal infant development. PIP aims to achieve this by targeting the mother's view of her infant, which may be affected by her own experiences, and linking them to her current relationship to her child, in order to improve the parent‐infant relationship directly. Abstract BACKGROUND Parent‐infant psychotherapy (PIP) is a dyadic intervention that works with parent and infant together, with the aim of improving the parent‐infant relationship and promoting infant attachment and optimal infant development. PIP aims to achieve this by targeting the mother's view of her infant, which may be affected by her own experiences, and linking them to her current relationship to her child, in order to improve the parent‐infant relationship directly. OBJECTIVES To assess the effectiveness of PIP in improving parental and infant mental health and the parent‐infant relationship. To identify the programme components that appear to be associated with more effective outcomes and factors that modify intervention effectiveness (e.g. programme duration, programme focus). SEARCH METHODS We searched the following electronic databases on 13 January 2014: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2014, Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, BIOSIS Citation Index, Science Citation Index, ERIC, and Sociological Abstracts. We also searched the meta Register of Controlled Trials, checked reference lists, and contacted study authors and other experts. SELECTION CRITERIA Two review authors assessed study eligibility independently. We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) and quasi‐randomised controlled trials (quasi‐RCT) that compared a PIP programme directed at parents with infants aged 24 months or less at study entry, with a control condition (i.e. waiting‐list, no treatment or treatment‐as‐usual), and used at least one standardised measure of parental or infant functioning. We also included studies that only used a second treatment group. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We adhered to the standard methodological procedures of The Cochrane Collaboration. We standardised the treatment effect for each outcome in each study by dividing the mean difference (MD) in post‐intervention scores between the intervention and control groups by the pooled standard deviation. We presented standardised mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for continuous data, and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data. We undertook meta‐analysis using a random‐effects model. MAIN RESULTS We included eight studies comprising 846 randomised participants, of which four studies involved comparisons of PIP with control groups only. Four studies involved comparisons with another treatment group (i.e. another PIP, video‐interaction guidance, psychoeducation, counselling or cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT)), two of these studies included a control group in addition to an alternative treatment group. Samples included women with postpartum depression, anxious or insecure attachment, maltreated, and prison populations. We assessed potential bias (random sequence generation, allocation concealment, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, and other bias). Four studies were at low risk of bias in four or more domains. Four studies were at high risk of bias for allocation concealment, and no study blinded participants or personnel to the intervention. Five studies did not provide adequate information for assessment of risk of bias in at least one domain (rated as unclear). Six studies contributed data to the PIP versus control comparisons producing 19 meta‐analyses of outcomes measured at post‐intervention or follow‐up, or both, for the primary outcomes of parental depression (both dichotomous and continuous data); measures of parent‐child interaction (i.e. maternal sensitivity, child involvement and parent engagement; infant attachment category (secure, avoidant, disorganised, resistant); attachment change (insecure to secure, stable secure, secure to insecure, stable insecure); infant behaviour and secondary outcomes (e.g. infant cognitive development). The results favoured neither PIP nor control for incidence of parental depression (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.04, 3 studies, 278 participants, low quality evidence) or parent‐reported levels of depression (SMD ‐ 0.22, 95% CI ‐0.46 to 0.02, 4 studies, 356 participants, low quality evidence). There were improvements favouring PIP in the proportion of infants securely attached at post‐intervention (RR 8.93, 95% CI 1.25 to 63.70, 2 studies, 168 participants, very low quality evidence); a reduction in the number of infants with an avoidant attachment style at post‐intervention (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.95, 2 studies, 168 participants, low quality evidence); fewer infants with disorganised attachment at post‐intervention (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.58, 2 studies, 168 participants, low quality evidence); and an increase in the proportion of infants moving from insecure to secure attachment at post‐intervention (RR 11.45, 95% CI 3.11 to 42.08, 2 studies, 168 participants, low quality evidence). There were no differences between PIP and control in any of the meta‐analyses for the remaining primary outcomes (i.e. adverse effects), or secondary outcomes. Four studies contributed data at post‐intervention or follow‐up to the PIP versus alternative treatment analyses producing 15 meta‐analyses measuring parent mental health (depression); parent‐infant interaction (maternal sensitivity); infant attachment category (secure, avoidant, resistant, disorganised) and attachment change (insecure to secure, stable secure, secure to insecure, stable insecure); infant behaviour and infant cognitive development. None of the remaining meta‐analyses of PIP versus alternative treatment for primary outcomes (i.e. adverse effects), or secondary outcomes showed differences in outcome or any adverse changes. We used the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group (GRADE) approach to rate the overall quality of the evidence. For all comparisons, we rated the evidence as low or very low quality for parental depression and secure or disorganised infant attachment. Where we downgraded the evidence, it was because there was risk of bias in the study design or execution of the trial. The included studies also involved relatively few participants and wide CI values (imprecision), and, in some cases, we detected clinical and statistical heterogeneity (inconsistency). Lower quality evidence resulted in lower confidence in the estimate of effect for those outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Although the findings of the current review suggest that PIP is a promising model in terms of improving infant attachment security in high‐risk families, there were no significant differences compared with no treatment or treatment‐as‐usual for other parent‐based or relationship‐based outcomes, and no evidence that PIP is more effective than other methods of working with parents and infants. Further rigorous research is needed to establish the impact of PIP on potentially important mediating factors such as parental mental health, reflective functioning, and parent‐infant interaction. Plain language summary PARENT‐INFANT PSYCHOTHERAPY FOR IMPROVING PARENT AND INFANT WELL‐BEING Background Parent‐infant psychotherapy (PIP) is intended to address problems in the parent‐infant relationship, and problems such as excessive crying and sleeping/eating difficulties. A parent‐infant psychotherapist works directly with the parent and infant in the home or clinic, to identify unconscious patterns of relating and behaving, and influences from the past that are impeding the parent‐infant relationship. Parents may be referred to this service (e.g. by a general practitioner in the UK) or may self refer to privately run services. The intervention is delivered to individual dyads but can also be delivered to small groups of parents and infants. Review question This review examined whether PIP is effective in improving the parent‐infant relationship, or other aspects of parent or infant functioning, and to identify the programme components that appear to be associated with more effective outcomes and factors that modify intervention effectiveness (e.g. programme duration, programme focus). Study characteristics We searched electronic databases and identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs, where participants are randomly allocated to one of two or more treatment groups) and one cluster randomised trial (where prisons rather than participants were used as the unit of randomisation), in which participants had been allocated to a receive PIP versus a control group, and which reported results using at least one standard measure of outcome (i.e. an instrument which has been tested to ensure that it reliably measures the outcome under investigation). Evidence is current to 13 January 2014. We identified eight studies with 846 randomised participants comparing either PIP with a no‐treatment control group (four studies) or comparing PIP with other types of treatment (four studies). Key results The studies comparing PIP with a no‐treatment control group contributed data to 19 meta‐analyses of the primary outcomes of parental mental health (depression), parent‐infant interaction outcomes of maternal sensitivity (i.e. the extent to which the caregiver responds in a timely and attuned manner), child involvement and parent positive engagement, and infant outcomes of infant attachment category (the infant's ability to seek and maintain closeness to primary caregiver ‐ infant attachment is classified as follows: ‘secure’ infant attachment is a positive outcome, which indicates that the infant is able to be comforted when distressed and is able to use the parent as a secure base from which to explore the environment. Infants who are insecurely attached are either ‘avoidant’ (i.e. appear not to need comforting when they are distressed and attempt to manage the distress themselves); or ‘resistant’ (i.e. unable to be comforted when distressed and alternate between resistance and anger). Children who are defined as ‘disorganised’ are unable to produce a coherent strategy in the face of distress and produce behaviour that is a mixture of approach and avoidance to the caregiver); and the secondary outcomes of infant behaviour and infant cognitive development (i.e. intellectual development, including thinking, problem solving and communicating). In our analyses, parents who received PIP were more likely to have an infant who was securely emotionally attached to the parent after the intervention; this a favourable outcome but there is very low quality evidence to support it. The studies comparing PIP with another model of treatment contributed data to 15 meta‐analysis assessments of primary outcomes, including parental mental health, parent‐infant interaction (maternal sensitivity); infant attachment and infant behaviour, or secondary infant outcomes such as infant cognitive development. None of these comparisons showed differences that favoured either PIP or the alternative intervention. None of the comparisons of PIP with either a control or comparison treatment group showed adverse changes for any outcome. We conclude that although PIP appears to be a promising method of improving infant attachment security, there is no evidence about its benefits in terms of other outcomes, and no evidence to show that it is more effective than other types of treatment for parents and infants. Further research is needed. Quality of the evidence The included studies were unclear about important quality criteria, had limitations in terms of their design or methods, or we judged that there was risk of bias in the trial. This lower quality evidence gives us less confidence in the observed effects.

The Effectiveness of Integrated Care Pathways for Adults and Children in Health Care Settings: A Systematic Review

How has the impact of 'care pathway technologies' on service integration in stroke care been measured and what is the strength of the evidence to support their effectiveness in this respect?

Individual care plans in chronic illness care: aims, use and outcomes

The Design and Evaluation of Clinical Pathway for Disease Management to Maximize Public Health Benefit

Untangling the inter-relatedness within integrated care programmes for community-dwelling frail older people: a rapid realist review

Integrated care for children and young people with special health and care needs: a systematic review

Comprehensive care programmes for children with medical complexity

Personalised care planning for adults with chronic or long-term health conditions

Contents and effectiveness of patient‐ and family‐centred care interventions in adult intensive care units: A systematic review

Clinical Impact of the Implementation Strategies Used to Apply the 2013 Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium or 2018 Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, Sleep Disruption Guideline Recommendations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Promoting and supporting self-management for adults living in the community with physical chronic illness: A systematic review of the effectiveness and meaningfulness of the patient-practitioner encounter

Interventions to increase patient and family involvement in escalation of care for acute life-threatening illness in community health and hospital settings.

Harmonizing allergy care-integrated care pathways and multidisciplinary approaches

Parent‐infant Psychotherapy for Improving Parental and Infant Mental Health: A Systematic Review

Factors influencing decision-making processes for intensive care therapy goals: A systematic integrative review

Factors that impact on the use of mechanical ventilation weaning protocols in critically ill adults and children: a qualitative evidence-synthesis

The effectiveness of continuous quality improvement for developing professional practice and improving health care outcomes: a systematic review

Development and evaluation of the feasibility and effects on staff, patients, and families of a new tool, the Psychosocial Assessment and Communication Evaluation (PACE), to improve communication and palliative care in intensive care and during clinical uncertainty

Proactive integrated consultation-liaison psychiatry and time spent in hospital by older medical inpatients in England (The HOME Study): a multicentre, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial

Are quality improvement collaboratives effective? A systematic review

Use and impact of clinical pathways across various healthcare settings: A protocol for an umbrella review of global evidence