Dataset Information

A mixed methods approach to understand variation in lung cancer practice and the role of guidelines.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Practice pattern data demonstrate regional variation and lower than expected rates of adherence to practice guideline (PG) recommendations for the treatment of stage II/IIIA resected and stage IIIA/IIIB unresected non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients in Ontario, Canada. This study sought to understand how clinical decisions are made for the treatment of these patients and the role of PGs.

Methods

Surveys and key informant interviews were undertaken with clinicians and administrators.

Results

Participants reported favorable ratings for PGs and the evidentiary bases underpinning them. The majority of participants agreed more patients should have received treatment and that regional variation is problematic. Participants estimated that up to 30% of patients are not good candidates for treatment and up to 20% of patients refuse treatment. The most common barrier to implementing PGs was the lack of organizational support by clinical administrative leadership. There was concern that the trial results underpinning the PG recommendations were not generalizable to the typical patients seen in clinic. The qualitative analysis yielded five themes related to physicians' decision making: the unique patient, the unique physician, the family, the clinical team, and the clinical evidence. A dynamic interplay between these factors exists.

Conclusion

Our study demonstrates the challenges inherent in (i) the complexity of clinical decision making; (ii) how quality of care problems are perceived and operationalized; and (iii) the clinical appropriateness and utility of PG recommendations. We argue that systematic and rigorous methodologies to help decision makers mitigate or negotiate these challenges are warranted.

SUBMITTER: Brouwers MC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3998045 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A mixed methods approach to understand variation in lung cancer practice and the role of guidelines.

Brouwers Melissa C MC Makarski Julie J Garcia Kimberly K Akram Saira S Darling Gail E GE Ellis Peter M PM Evans William K WK Giacomini Mita M Martelli-Reid Lorraine L Ung Yee C YC

Implementation science : IS 20140322 1

<h4>Introduction</h4>Practice pattern data demonstrate regional variation and lower than expected rates of adherence to practice guideline (PG) recommendations for the treatment of stage II/IIIA resected and stage IIIA/IIIB unresected non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients in Ontario, Canada. This study sought to understand how clinical decisions are made for the treatment of these patients and the role of PGs.<h4>Methods</h4>Surveys and key informant interviews were undertaken with clinici ...[more]

PMID: 24655753

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe use of best practice guidelines (BPGs) has the potential to decrease the gap between best evidence and nursing and healthcare practices. We conducted an exploratory mixed method study to identify strategies, processes, and indicators relevant to the implementation and sustainability of two Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario (RNAO) BPGs at Best Practice Spotlight Organizations® (BPSOs).MethodsOur study had four phases. In Phase 1, we triangulated two qualitative studies: a) secondary analysis of 126 narrative reports detailing implementation progress from 21 BPSOs spanning four sectors to identify strategies and processes used to support the implementation and sustainability of BPGs and b) interviews with 25 guideline implementers to identify additional strategies and processes. In Phase 2, we evaluated correlations between strategies and processes identified from the narrative reports and one process and one outcome indicator for each of the guideline. In Phase 3, the results from Phases 1 and 2 informed indicator development, led by an expert panel. In Phase 4, the indicators were assessed internally by RNAO staff and externally by Ontario Health Teams. A survey was used to validate proposed indicators to determine relevance, feasibility, readability, and usability with knowledge users and BPSO leaders.ResultsTriangulation of the two qualitative studies revealed 46 codes of implementation and sustainability of BPGs, classified into eight overarching themes: Stakeholder Engagement, Practice Interventions, Capacity Building, Evidence-Based Culture, Leadership, Evaluation & Monitoring, Communication, and Governance. A total of 28 structure, process, or outcome indicators were developed. End users and BPSO leaders were agreeable with the indicators according to the validation survey.ConclusionsMany processes and strategies can influence the implementation and sustainability of BPGs at BPSOs. We have developed indicators that can help BPSOs promote evidence-informed practice implementation of BPGs.

Project description:BackgroundIt is not known whether there are differences in the quality and recommendations between evidence-based (EB) and consensus-based (CB) guidelines. We used breast cancer guidelines as a case study to assess for these differences.MethodsFive different instruments to evaluate the quality of guidelines were identified by a literature search. We also searched MEDLINE and the Internet to locate 8 breast cancer guidelines. These guidelines were classified in three categories: evidence based, consensus based and consensus based with no explicit consideration of evidence (CB-EB). Each guideline was evaluated by three of the authors using each of the instruments. For each guideline we assessed the agreement among 14 decision points which were selected from the NCCN (National Cancer Comprehensive Network) guidelines algorithm. For each decision point we recorded the level of the quality of the information used to support it. A regression analysis was performed to assess if the percentage of high quality evidence used in the guidelines development was related to the overall quality of the guidelines.ResultsThree guidelines were classified as EB, three as CB-EB and two as CB. The EB guidelines scored better than CB, with the CB-EB scoring in the middle among all instruments for guidelines quality assessment. No major disagreement in recommendations was detected among the guidelines regardless of the method used for development, but the EB guidelines had a better agreement with the benchmark guideline for any decision point. When the source of evidence used to support decision were of high quality, we found a higher level of full agreement among the guidelines' recommendations. Up to 94% of variation in the quality score among guidelines could be explained by the quality of evidence used for guidelines development.ConclusionEB guidelines have a better quality than CB guidelines and CB-EB guidelines. Explicit use of high quality evidence can lead to a better agreement among recommendations. However, no major disagreement among guidelines was noted regardless of the method for their development.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:Many treatment decisions are preference-sensitive and call for shared decision-making, notably when benefits are limited or uncertain, and harms impact quality of life. We explored if clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) acknowledge preference-sensitive decisions in how they motivate and phrase their recommendations. DESIGN:We performed a qualitative analysis of the content of CPGs and verified the results in semistructured interviews with CPG panel members. SETTING:Dutch oncology CPGs issued in 2010 or later, concerning primary treatment with curative intent. PARTICIPANTS:14 CPG panel members. MAIN OUTCOMES:For treatment recommendations from six CPG modules, two researchers extracted the following: strength of recommendation in terms of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation and its consistency with the CPG text; completeness of presentation of benefits and harms; incorporation of patient preferences; statements on the panel's benefits-harm trade-off underlying recommendation; and advice on patient involvement in decision-making. RESULTS:We identified 32 recommendations, 18 were acknowledged preference-sensitive decisions. Three of 14 strong recommendations should have been weak based on the module text. The reporting of benefits and harms, and their probabilities, was sufficiently complete and clear to inform the strength of the recommendation in one of the six modules only. Numerical probabilities were seldom presented. None of the modules presented information on patient preferences. CPG panel's preferences were not made explicit, but appeared to have impacted 15 of 32 recommendations. Advice to involve patients and their preferences in decision-making was given for 20 recommendations (14 weak). Interviewees confirmed these findings. Explanations for lack of information were, for example, that clinicians know the information and that CPGs must be short. Explanations for trade-offs made were cultural-historical preferences, compliance with daily care, presumed role of CPGs and lack of time. CONCLUSIONS:The motivation and phrasing of CPG recommendations do not stimulate choice awareness and a neutral presentation of options, thus hindering shared decision-making.

Project description:BackgroundHypertension is the largest single contributor to the global burden of disease, affecting an estimated 1.39 billion people worldwide. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) can aid in the effective management of this common condition, however, inconsistencies exist between CPGs, and the extent of this is unknown. Understanding the differences in CPG recommendations across income settings may provide an important means of understanding some of the global variations in clinical outcomes related to hypertension.AimsThis study aims to analyse the variation between hypertension CPGs globally. It aims to assess the variation in three areas: diagnostic threshold and staging, treatment and target blood pressure (BP) recommendations in hypertension.MethodsA search was conducted on the MEDLINE repository to identify national and international hypertension CPGs from 2010 to May 2020. An additional country-specific grey-literature search was conducted for all countries and territories of the world as identified by the World Bank. Data describing the diagnosis, staging, treatment and target blood pressure were extracted from CPGs, and variations between CPGs for these domains were analysed.ResultsForty-eight CPGs from across all World Bank income settings were selected for analysis. Ninety-six per cent of guidelines defined hypertension as a clinic-based BP of ≥140/90 mmHg, and 87% of guidelines recommended a target BP of < 140/90 mmHg. In the pharmacological treatment of hypertension, eight different first-step, 17 different second-step and six different third-step drug recommendations were observed. Low-income countries preferentially recommended diuretics (63%) in the first-step treatment, whilst high-income countries offered more choice between antihypertensive classes. Forty-four per cent of guidelines, of which 71% were from higher-income contexts recommended initiating treatment with dual-drug therapy at BP 160/100 mmHg or higher.ConclusionThis study found that CPGs remained largely consistent in the definition, staging and target BP recommendations for hypertension. Extensive variation was observed in treatment recommendations, particularly for second-line therapy. Variation existed between income settings; low-income countries prescribed cheaper drugs, offered less clinician choice in medications and initiated dual therapy at later stages than higher-income countries. Future research exploring the underlying drivers of this variation may improve outcomes for hypertensive patients across clinical contexts.

Project description:ObjectivesThis study considered a novel 'interim' transitional role for new doctors (termed 'FiY1', interim Foundation Year 1), bridging medical school and Foundation Programme (FP). Research questions considered effects on doctors' well-being and perceived preparedness, and influences on their experience of transition. While FiY1 was introduced in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, findings have wider and ongoing relevance.DesignA sequential mixed-methods study involved two questionnaire phases, followed by semi-structured interviews. In phase 1, questionnaires were distributed to doctors in FiY1 posts, and in phase 2, to all new FP doctors, including those who had not undertaken FiY1.Setting and participantsParticipants were newly qualified doctors from UK medical schools, working in UK hospitals in 2020. 77% (n=668) of all participants across all phases had undertaken FiY1 before starting FP in August. The remainder started FP in August with varying experience beforehand.Outcome measuresQuestionnaires measured preparedness for practice, stress, anxiety, depression, burnout, identity, and tolerance of ambiguity. Interviews explored participants' experiences in more depth.ResultsAnalysis of questionnaires (phase 1 n=441 FiY1s, phase 2 n=477 FiY1s, 196 non-FiY1s) indicated that FiY1s felt more prepared than non-FiY1 colleagues for starting FP in August (β=2.71, 95% CI=2.21 to 3.22, p<0.0001), which persisted to October (β=1.85, CI=1.28 to 2.41, p<0.0001). Likelihood of feeling prepared increased with FiY1 duration (OR=1.02, CI=1.00 to 1.03, p=0.0097). Despite challenges to well-being during FiY1, no later detriment was apparent. Thematic analysis of interview data (n=22) identified different ways, structural and interpersonal, in which the FiY1 role enhanced doctors' emerging independence supported by systems and colleagues, providing 'supported autonomy'.ConclusionsAn explicitly transitional role can benefit doctors as they move from medical school to independent practice. We suggest that the features of supported autonomy are those of institutionalised liminality-a structured role 'betwixt and between' education and practice-and this lens may provide a guide to optimising the design of such posts.

Dataset Information

A mixed methods approach to understand variation in lung cancer practice and the role of guidelines.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

A mixed methods approach to understand variation in lung cancer practice and the role of guidelines.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets