Dataset Information

Knowledge translation of clinical practice guidelines among neurologists: A mixed-methods study.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Clinical practice guidelines have the potential to improve care, but are often not optimally implemented. Improving guideline use in clinical practice may improve care. The objective of this study was to identify the barriers and facilitators (determinants) of guidelines use among neurologists and to propose a strategy to improve guideline implementation.

Methods

This was a mixed-methods study design. A quantitative, population-based, cross-sectional survey of Canadian neurologists was conducted. Associations between guidelines use and determinants of guidelines use were examined. Focus groups and interviews were conducted using purposeful sampling of the population. Determinants of guideline use were mapped to interventions to establish a strategy for guideline implementation among neurologists.

Results

38.7% (n = 311) of neurologists responded to the survey. Typically, respondents had been practicing for 16.6 years and worked in an academic institution in an urban setting. Being male and having an academic affiliation was associated with guideline use. Determinants of guideline use differed between guideline users and non-users; non-users consistently rating determinants lower than users, especially applicability. Two focus groups and one interview (n = 11) identified six main themes of determinants of guideline use: Credibility, knowledge, applicability, resources, motivation, and target audience; which was congruent with the quantitative data. The proposed knowledge translation strategy contains three pillars: guidelines development, dissemination, and interventions.

Conclusions

Several determinants of guideline use not commonly discussed in the literature were identified (applicability, target audience, credibility). The proposed implementation strategy is a valuable resource for guideline developers and policy/decision-makers to improve knowledge translation of guidelines among neurologists.

SUBMITTER: Sauro KM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6179253 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Knowledge translation of clinical practice guidelines among neurologists: A mixed-methods study.

Sauro Khara M KM Wiebe Samuel S Holroyd-Leduc Jayna J DeCoster Carolyn C Quan Hude H Bell Meaghan M Jetté Nathalie N

PloS one 20181010 10

<h4>Objectives</h4>Clinical practice guidelines have the potential to improve care, but are often not optimally implemented. Improving guideline use in clinical practice may improve care. The objective of this study was to identify the barriers and facilitators (determinants) of guidelines use among neurologists and to propose a strategy to improve guideline implementation.<h4>Methods</h4>This was a mixed-methods study design. A quantitative, population-based, cross-sectional survey of Canadian ...[more]

PMID: 30303995

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Good Clinical Practice is an international standard for the design and conduct of clinical trials to ensure ethical and scientific integrity. Recent National Institutes of Health policy mandates Good Clinical Practice training for all investigators and staff involved in National Institutes of Health-funded clinical trials, yet approaches to Good Clinical Practice training vary widely. There are limited data on Good Clinical Practice knowledge among the clinical trial workforce and no evidence regarding effective methods to learn Good Clinical Practice. METHODS:We used an exploratory sequential mixed-methods design. We conducted 18 exploratory qualitative interviews with clinical research coordinators to help inform the development of the quantitative survey. We then administered a validated 32-item, multiple-choice test of Good Clinical Practice knowledge with a survey of work and training experiences to 625 clinical research coordinators at three academic medical centers in the United States. Variables that were significantly associated with Good Clinical Practice knowledge were entered into a multiple regression analysis to identify unique predictors of Good Clinical Practice knowledge. We controlled for verbal-numerical reasoning and learning orientation. RESULTS:During qualitative interviews, clinical research coordinators reported that formal Good Clinical Practice training had value but they simultaneously emphasized the importance of experience, day-to-day practice, and observing colleagues and mentors as essential to supplement formal training. In our quantitative survey, five variables predicted a total of 22% of variance in Good Clinical Practice knowledge scores: years of experience as a clinical research coordinator, working on diverse types of trials, supporting industry-funded trials, being certified in clinical research coordination, and aggregated hours of online and face-to-face training (in that order). CONCLUSION:The duration and richness of experience as a clinical research coordinator were the strongest predictors of Good Clinical Practice knowledge, a finding consistent with our exploratory qualitative interview results. Our findings suggest that formal online and face-to-face training has a minimal influence on Good Clinical Practice knowledge. The type of training-whether online or face to face-does not make a significant difference in Good Clinical Practice knowledge scores. Much of the variance in Good Clinical Practice knowledge remains unexplained, calling for further research in this area.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Current medical professions involve an extensive knowledge of the latest validated scientific data to implement disease diagnosis, therapeutic strategies, and patient care. Although clinicians can refer to a growing number and type of information sources to keep current with new scientific achievements, there are still various concerns about medical information validity, quality, and applicability into clinical practice. Novel strategies are required to identify physicians' real-life needs with the final aim to improve modern medical information delivery. OBJECTIVE:Our research used an innovative tool to collect real-time physician queries in order to investigate information needs and seeking behavior of Italian neurologists treating patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) and migraine. METHODS:The study was designed as an exploratory mixed methods (ie, qualitative and quantitative) study involving 15 consecutive days of observation. A total of 50 neurologists (n=25 MS and n=25 migraine specialists) were recruited. Data were collected using an instant messaging mobile app designed for this research. At each information-seeking event, moderators triggered a computer-assisted personal interview including both semistructured interview and close-ended questions. Interactions and physician queries collected using the mobile app were coded into emerging themes by content analysis. RESULTS:Neurologist queries were relevant to the following major themes: therapy management (36/50, 71%) and drug-related information (34/50, 67%), followed by diagnostic strategies and procedures (21/50, 42%). Quantitative analysis indicated online resources were preferentially used by clinicians (48/50, 96%) compared with offline sources (24/50, 47%). A multichannel approach, in which both online and offline sources were consulted to meet the same need, was adopted in 33% (65/198) of information-seeking events. Neurologists more likely retrieved information from online relative to offline channels (F=1.7; P=.01). MS specialists were 53% more likely to engage in one information-seeking event compared with migraine neurologists (risk ratio 1.54; 95% CI 1.16-2.05). MS specialists tended to be more interested in patient-related content than migraine clinicians (28% [7/25] vs 10% [2/25], P=.06), who conversely more likely sought information concerning therapy management (85% [21/25] vs 60% [15/25], P=.05). Compared with MS clinicians, migraine specialists had a harder time finding the required information, either looking at online or offline channels (F=12.5; P=.01) and less frequently used offline channels (30% [8/25] vs 60% [15/25] of information-seeking events, P=.02). When multiple sources needed to be consulted to retrieve an information item, a reduced satisfaction rate was observed both among migraine and MS specialists (single source vs multiple sources P=.003). CONCLUSIONS:This study provides a detailed description of real-life seeking behavior, educational needs, and information sources adopted by Italian MS and migraine neurologists. Neurologist information needs and seeking behavior reflect the specific characteristics of the specialty area in which they operate. These findings suggest identification of time- and context-specific needs of clinicians is required to design an effective medical information strategy.

Project description:BackgroundEvidence-informed clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are useful tools to inform transparent healthcare decision-making. Consideration of health economic evidence (HEE) during CPG development in a structured manner remains a challenge globally and locally. This study explored the views, current practice, training needs and challenges faced by CPG developers in the production and use of HEE for CPGs in South Africa.MethodsThis mixed-methods study comprised an online survey and a focus group discussion. The survey was piloted and subsequently sent to CPG role players - evidence reviewers, CPG panellists, academics involved with training in relevant disciplines like health economics and public health, implementers and funders. The focus group participants hold strategic roles in CPG development and health economic activities nationally. The survey evaluated mean values, measures of variability, and percentages for Likert scales, while narrative components were thematically analysed. Focus group data were manually coded, thematically analysed and verified.ResultsThe survey (n = 55 respondents to 245 surveys distributed) and one focus group (n = 5 participants from 10 people invited) occurred between October 2018 and February 2019. We found the most consistent reason why HEE should inform CPG decisions was 'making more efficient use of limited financial resources'. This was explained by numerous context and methodological barriers. Focus groups participants noted that consideration of complex HEE are not achievable without bolstering skills in applying evidence-based medicine principles. Further concerns include lack of clarity of standard methods; inequitable and opaque topic selection across private and public sectors; inadequate skills of CPG panel members to use HEE; and the ability of health economists to communicate results in accessible ways. Overall, in the absence of clarity about process and methods, politics and interests may drive CPG decisions about which interventions to implement.ConclusionsHEE should ideally be considered in CPG decisions in South Africa. However, this will remain hampered until the CPG community agree on methods and processes for using HEE in CPGs. Focused investment by national government to address the challenges identified by the study is imperative for a better return on investment as National Health Insurance moves forward.

Project description:IntroductionAssessing the process used to synthesize the evidence in clinical practice guidelines enables users to determine the trustworthiness of the recommendations. Clinicians are increasingly dependent on guidelines to keep up with vast quantities of medical literature, and guidelines are followed to avoid malpractice suits. We aimed to assess whether systematic methods were used when synthesizing the evidence for guidelines; and to determine the type of review cited in support of recommendations.MethodsGuidelines published in 2017 and 2018 were retrieved from the TRIP and Epistemonikos databases. We randomly sorted and sequentially screened clinical guidelines on all topics to select the first 50 that met our inclusion criteria. Our primary outcomes were the number of guidelines using either a systematic or non-systematic process to gather, assess, and synthesise evidence; and the numbers of recommendations within guidelines based on different types of evidence synthesis (systematic or non-systematic reviews). If a review was cited, we looked for evidence that it was critically appraised, and recorded which quality assessment tool was used. Finally, we examined the relation between the use of the GRADE approach, systematic review process, and type of funder.ResultsOf the 50 guidelines, 17 (34%) systematically synthesised the evidence to inform recommendations. These 17 guidelines clearly reported their objectives and eligibility criteria, conducted comprehensive search strategies, and assessed the quality of the studies. Of the 29/50 guidelines that included reviews, 6 (21%) assessed the risk of bias of the review. The quality of primary studies was reported in 30/50 (60%) guidelines.ConclusionsHigh quality, systematic review products provide the best available evidence to inform guideline recommendations. Using non-systematic methods compromises the validity and reliability of the evidence used to inform guideline recommendations, leading to potentially misleading and untrustworthy results.

Project description:BACKGROUND: The process and effectiveness of knowledge translation (KT) interventions targeting policymakers are rarely reported. In Cambodia, a low-income country (LIC), an intervention aiming to provide evidence-based knowledge on pneumonia to health authorities was developed to help update pediatric and adult national clinical guidelines. Through a case study, we assessed the effectiveness of this KT intervention, with the goal of identifying the barriers to KT and suggest strategies to facilitate KT in similar settings. METHODS: An extensive search for all relevant sources of data documenting the processes of updating adult and pediatric pneumonia guidelines was done. Documents included among others, reports, meeting minutes, and email correspondences. The study was conducted in successive phases: an appraisal of the content of both adult and pediatric pneumonia guidelines; an appraisal of the quality of guidelines by independent experts, using the AGREE-II instrument; a description and modeling of the KT process within the guidelines updating system, using the Unified Modeling Language (UML) tools 2.2; and the listing of the barriers and facilitators to KT we identified during the study. RESULTS: The first appraisal showed that the integration of the KT key messages in pediatric and adult guidelines varied with a better efficiency in the pediatric guidelines. The overall AGREE-II quality assessments scored 37% and 44% for adult and pediatric guidelines, respectively. Scores were lowest for the domains of 'rigor of development' and 'editorial independence.' The UML analysis highlighted that time frames and constraints of the involved stakeholders greatly differed and that there were several missed opportunities to translate on evidence into the adult pneumonia guideline. Seventeen facilitating factors and 18 potential barriers to KT were identified. Main barriers were related to the absence of a clear mandate from the Ministry of Health for the researchers and to a lack of synchronization between knowledge production and policy-making. CONCLUSIONS: Study findings suggest that stakeholders, both researchers and policy makers planning to update clinical guidelines in LIC may need methodological support to overcome the expected barriers.

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:ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to explore perspectives and reasoning of medical staff from Class A tertiary hospitals about the factors hindering and facilitating the uptake and use of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) during medical procedures.DesignMixed-method research study to collect and analyse both quantitative and qualitative data.SettingClass A tertiary hospitals in China.ParticipantsThe inclusion criteria for the questionnaire survey and qualitative research were (1) medical practitioners and (2) years of practice: above 5 years in a tertiary hospital.MethodsQuestionnaires were distributed to medical staff in 11 cities to collect quantitative data. Frequency and ranking of barriers and enablers were analysed. Spearman correlations were computed to explore the correlation between years of practice, professional title ranking and educational background with self-reported guideline adherence. Using a constructivist grounded theory method, qualitative data were generated via in-depth face-to-face interviews with Chinese medical practitioners.ResultsA total of 359 medical practitioners were surveyed and 32 medical practitioners interviewed in 11 cities. Higher frequency and higher ranking of barriers all converged on 'lack of access', 'less convenient', 'lack of applicability' and 'lack of evidence from Chinese sample'. Higher frequency and higher ranking of enablers converged on 'Short formats presentation', 'Utilisation of various media', 'Information visualisation' and 'Linking to patient electronic medical records'. There were no relationships between characteristics of respondents with self-reported adherence. This research produced a theoretical understanding of the experience of medical practitioners when using guidelines. Themes identified were as follows: existing intrinsic flaws in guidelines, deficient or incomplete system mechanism and being ambiguous.ConclusionOur findings provide a comprehensive and culturally sensitive perspective in understanding guideline implementation in China. Strategies addressing those barriers should be further discussed and researched in the future.

Dataset Information

Knowledge translation of clinical practice guidelines among neurologists: A mixed-methods study.

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Knowledge translation of clinical practice guidelines among neurologists: A mixed-methods study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets