Dataset Information

Determinants of clinical practice guidelines' utilization for the management of musculoskeletal disorders: a scoping review.

ABSTRACT:

Context

Many clinical practice guidelines have been developed for the management of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). However, there is a gap between evidence-based knowledge and clinical practice, and reasons are poorly understood. Understanding why healthcare providers use clinical practice guidelines is essential to improve their implementation, dissemination, and adherence.

Aim

To identify determinants of clinical practice guidelines' utilization by health care providers involved in the assessment and management of MSDs.

Method

A scoping review of the literature was conducted. Three databases were searched from inception to March 2021. Article identification, study design, methodological quality, type of healthcare providers, MSDs, barriers and facilitators associated with guidelines' utilization were extracted from selected articles.

Results

8671 citations were retrieved, and 43 articles were selected. 51% of studies were from Europe, and most were quantitative studies (64%) following a cross-sectional design (88%). Almost 80% of articles dealt with low back pain guidelines, and the most studied healthcare providers were general practitioners or physiotherapists. Five main barriers to guideline utilization were expressed by providers: 1) disagreement between recommendations and patient expectations; 2) guidelines not specific to individual patients; 3) unfamiliarity with "non-specific" term, or with the bio psychosocial model of MSDs; 4) time consuming; and 5) heterogeneity in guideline methods. Four main facilitators to guideline utilization were cited: 1) clinician's interest in evidence-based practice; 2) perception from clinicians that the guideline will improve triage, diagnosis and management; 3) time efficiency; and 4) standardized language.

Conclusion

Identifying modifiable determinants is the first step in developing implementation strategies to improve guideline utilization in clinical practice.

SUBMITTER: Sorondo D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8170973 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundClinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are developed to assist health care providers in decision-making. We systematically reviewed existing CPGs on the HDPs (hypertensive disorders of pregnancy) to inform clinical practice.Methodology & principal findingsMEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Methodology Register, Health Technology Assessments, and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (Ovid interface), Grey Matters, Google Scholar, and personal records were searched for CPGs on the HDPs (Jan/03 to Nov/13) in English, French, Dutch, or German. Of 13 CPGs identified, three were multinational and three developed for community/midwifery use. Length varied from 3-1188 pages and three guidelines did not formulate recommendations. Eight different grading systems were identified for assessing evidence quality and recommendation strength. No guideline scored ≧80% on every domain of the AGREE II, a tool for assessing guideline methodological quality; two CPGs did so for 5/6 domains. Consistency was seen for (i) definitions of hypertension, proteinuria, chronic and gestational hypertension; (ii) pre-eclampsia prevention for women at increased risk: calcium when intake is low and low-dose aspirin, but not vitamins C and E or diuretics; (iii) antihypertensive treatment of severe hypertension; (iv) MgSO4 for eclampsia and severe pre-eclampsia; (v) antenatal corticosteroids at <34 wks when delivery is probable within 7 days; (vi) delivery for women with severe pre-eclampsia pre-viability or pre-eclampsia at term; and (vii) active management of the third stage of labour with oxytocin. Notable inconsistencies were in: (i) definitions of pre-eclampsia and severe pre-eclampsia; (ii) target BP for non-severe hypertension; (iii) timing of delivery for women with pre-eclampsia and severe pre-eclampsia; (iv) MgSO4 for non-severe pre-eclampsia, and (v) postpartum maternal monitoring.ConclusionsExisting international HDP CPGs have areas of consistency with which clinicians and researchers can work to develop auditable standards, and areas of inconsistency that should be addressed by future research.

Project description:BackgroundIncreasing numbers of family carers are providing informal care in community settings. This creates a number of challenges because family carers are at risk of poor physical and psychological health outcomes, with consequences both for themselves and those for whom they provide care. General Practitioners (GPs), who play a central role in community-based care, are ideally positioned to identify, assess, and signpost carers to supports. However, there is a significant gap in the literature in respect of appropriate guidance and resources to support them in this role.MethodsA scoping review was undertaken to examine clinical guidelines and recommendations for GPs to support them in their role with family carers. This involved a multidisciplinary team, in line with Arksey & O'Malley's framework, and entailed searches of ten peer-reviewed databases and grey literature between September-November 2020.ResultsThe searches yielded a total of 4,651 English language papers, 35 of which met the criteria for inclusion after removing duplicates, screening titles and abstracts, and performing full-text readings. Ten papers focused on resources/guidelines for GPs, twenty were research papers, three were review papers, one was a framework of quality markers for carer support, and one was an editorial. Data synthesis indicated that nine (90%) of the guidelines included some elements relating to the identification, assessment, and/or signposting of carers. Key strategies for identifying carers suggest that a whole practice approach is optimal, incorporating a role for the GP, practice staff, and for the use of appropriate supporting documentation. Important knowledge gaps were highlighted in respect of appropriate clinical assessment and evidence-based signposting pathways.ConclusionOur review addresses a significant gap in the literature by providing an important synthesis of current available evidence on clinical guidelines for GPs in supporting family carers, including strategies for identification, options for assessment and potential referral/signposting routes. However, there is a need for greater transparency of the existing evidence base as well as much more research to evaluate the effectiveness and increase the routine utilisation, of clinical guidelines in primary care.

Project description:ObjectivesOrganisations that develop clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) encourage involvement of patients and the publics in their development, however, there are no standard methodologies for doing so. To examine how CPGs report patient and public involvement (PPI), we conducted a scoping review of the evidence addressing the following four questions: (1) who are the patients and publics involved in developing the CPG?; (2) from where and how are the patients and publics recruited?; (3) at what stage in the CPG development process are the patients and publics involved? and (4) how do the patients and publics contribute their views? We also extracted data on the use of PPI reporting checklists by the included studies.DesignWe used the methodology developed by Arksey and O'Malley and refined by the Joanna Briggs Institute. We searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO, websites of national guideline bodies from the UK, Canada, Australia and the USA, and conducted a forward citation search. No language, date or participant demographics restrictions were applied. Data were synthesised narratively.ResultsWe included 47 studies addressing 1 or more of the 4 questions. All included studies reported who the patient and publics involved (PPI members) were, and several studies reported PPI members from different groups. Patients were reported in 43/47 studies, advocates were reported in 22/47 studies, patients and advocates reported in 17/47 studies, and general public reported in 2/47 studies. Thirty-four studies reported from where the patients and publics were recruited, with patient groups being the most common (20/34). Stage of involvement was reported by 42/47 studies, most commonly at question identification (26/42) and draft review (18/42) stages. Forty-two studies reported how the patients contributed, most commonly via group meetings (18/42) or individual interviews. Ten studies cited or used a reporting checklist to report findings.ConclusionsOur scoping review has revealed knowledge gaps to inform future research in several ways: replication, terminology and inclusion. First, no standard approach to PPI in CPG development could be inferred from the research. Second, inconsistent terminology to describe patients and publics reduces clarity around which patients and publics have been involved in developing CPGs. Finally, the under-representation of research describing PPI in the development of screening, as opposed to treatment, CPGs warrants further attention.

Project description:ObjectiveeHealth-mediated interventions have been proposed as one option to support self-management in those with musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). This scoping review aimed to chart the evidence regarding eHealth modalities, musculoskeletal diagnosis, and outcomes of eHealth-mediated self-management support interventions in persons with MSDs and identify any gaps within the literature.MethodsSix electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews), 7 grey literature sources (eg, OpenGrey), and reference and citation lists of included studies were searched from database inception to July 2020. Published studies of adult participants with a MSD utilizing an eHealth intervention to support self-management were included. Studies were limited to those published in English. Two reviewers independently screened all studies. Data were extracted by 1 reviewer and reviewed by another reviewer.ResultsAfter screening 3377 titles and abstracts followed by 176 full texts, 87 studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria. The majority were published in the last 5 years (n = 48; 55%), with almost one-third originating in the United States (n = 28; 32%). The most common eHealth modality type was internet based (n = 22; 35%), with almost one-half (n = 41; 47%) of the included studies involving participants with widespread musculoskeletal symptoms. The most commonly reported outcomes were related to body functions (ie, pain intensity) (n = 67; 45%), closely followed by activities and participation (ie, function) (n = 65; 44%), with environmental factors (ie, health care utilization) the least commonly reported (n = 17; 20%).ConclusionsThere is considerable variation within the eHealth-mediated self-management support intervention literature. Research is needed on the role of eHealth-mediated self-management support interventions across a broad range of MSDs to guide clinical practice.ImpactThis scoping review has identified gaps in the literature relating to specific eHealth modalities, musculoskeletal diagnoses, and health care utilization data, which should guide future research.