Dataset Information

Implementation of international guidelines for polycystic ovary syndrome: barriers and facilitators among gynecologists and primary care providers.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To identify barriers and facilitators to the implementation of evidence-based guidelines among gynecologists and primary care physicians (PCPs) caring for women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS).

Design

Qualitative semi-structured interview study.

Setting

Academic medical center.

Patients

None.

Interventions

None.

Main outcome measures

Barriers and facilitators in the diagnosis and management of PCOS.

Results

We interviewed 10 gynecologists and 8 PCPs to reach thematic saturation using a thematic analysis approach. Four themes were identified: diagnostic considerations, treatment of symptoms of PCOS, screening for long-term complications of PCOS, and counseling on long-term complications. Many gynecologists did not perform the recommended metabolic screening and were uncomfortable managing metabolic complications of PCOS. They uniformly counseled patients on the risk of endometrial hyperplasia and infertility. PCPs expressed the lack of familiarity with diagnostic criteria and often did not complete a comprehensive workup before making a diagnosis of PCOS. However, they routinely counseled patients on cardiometabolic risk and were familiar with managing the related long-term complications. Common barriers to comprehensive care delivery included the lack of knowledge and inadequate time and resources. Important facilitators included the overlap between the management of PCOS and other conditions such as obesity and abnormal uterine bleeding.

Conclusions

Our study highlights the need for interventions that target the barriers identified among gynecologists and PCPs in implementing guidelines for diagnosing and managing PCOS. In conjunction with prior studies, our findings support a multidisciplinary care model for women with PCOS. Future studies should focus on implementation strategies to facilitate evidence-based care.

SUBMITTER: Lee IT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9250120 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Alcohol and drug use are leading causes of morbidity and mortality that frequently go unidentified in medical settings. As part of a multi-phase study to implement electronic health record-integrated substance use screening in primary care clinics, we interviewed key clinical stakeholders to identify current substance use screening practices, barriers to screening, and recommendations for its implementation. METHODS:Focus groups and individual interviews were conducted with 67 stakeholders, including patients, primary care providers (faculty and resident physicians), nurses, and medical assistants, in two urban academic health systems. Themes were identified using an inductive approach, revised through an iterative process, and mapped to the Knowledge to Action (KTA) framework, which guides the implementation of new clinical practices (Graham et al. in J Contin Educ Health Prof 26(1):13-24, 2006). RESULTS:Factors affecting implementation based on KTA elements were identified from participant narratives. Identifying the problem: Participants consistently agreed that having knowledge of a patient's substance use is important because of its impacts on health and medical care, that substance use is not properly identified in medical settings currently, and that universal screening is the best approach. Assessing barriers: Patients expressed concerns about consequences of disclosing substance use, confidentiality, and the individual's own reluctance to acknowledge a substance use problem. Barriers identified by providers included individual-level factors such as lack of clinical knowledge and training, as well as systems-level factors including time pressure, resources, lack of space, and difficulty accessing addiction treatment. Adapting to the local context: Most patients and providers stated that the primary care provider should play a key role in substance use screening and interventions. Opinions diverged regarding the optimal approach to delivering screening, although most preferred a patient self-administered approach. Many providers reported that taking effective action once unhealthy substance use is identified is crucial. CONCLUSIONS:Participants expressed support for substance use screening as a valuable part of medical care, and identified individual-level as well as systems-level barriers to its implementation. These findings suggest that screening programs should clearly communicate the goals of screening to patients and proactively counteract stigma, address staff concerns regarding time and workflow, and provide education as well as treatment resources to primary care providers.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To date, little is known about differences in the knowledge, diagnosis making and treatment strategies of health care providers regarding polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) across different disciplines in countries with similar health care systems. To inform guideline translation, we aimed to study physician reported awareness, diagnosis and management of PCOS and to explore differences between medical disciplines in the Nordic countries and Estonia. METHODS:This cross-sectional survey was conducted among 382 endocrinologists and obstetrician-gynaecologists in the Nordic countries and Estonia in 2015-2016. Of the participating physicians, 43% resided in Finland, 18% in Denmark, 16% in Norway, 13% in Estonia, and 10% in Sweden or Iceland, and 75% were obstetrician-gynaecologists. Multivariable logistic regression models were run to identify health care provider characteristics for awareness, diagnosis and treatment of PCOS. RESULTS:Clinical features, lifestyle management and comorbidity were commonly recognized in women with PCOS, while impairment in psychosocial wellbeing was not well acknowledged. Over two-thirds of the physicians used the Rotterdam diagnostic criteria for PCOS. Medical endocrinologists more often recommended lifestyle management (OR = 3.6, CI 1.6-8.1) or metformin (OR = 5.0, CI 2.5-10.2), but less frequently OCP (OR = 0.5, CI 0.2-0.9) for non-fertility concerns than general obstetrician-gynaecologists. The physicians aged <35 years were 2.2 times (95% CI 1.1-4.3) more likely than older physicians to recommend lifestyle management for patients with PCOS for fertility concerns. Physicians aged 46-55 years were less likely to recommend oral contraceptive pills (OCP) for patients with PCOS than physicians aged >56 (adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 0.4, 95% CI 0.2-0.8). CONCLUSION:Despite well-organized healthcare, awareness, diagnosis and management of PCOS is suboptimal, especially in relation to psychosocial comorbidities, among physicians in the Nordic countries and Estonia. Physicians need more education on PCOS and evidence-based information on Rotterdam diagnostic criteria, psychosocial features and treatment of PCOS, with the recently published international PCOS guideline well needed and welcomed.

Project description:ObjectiveTo identify barriers and facilitators to international implementation of a prospective system for standardized outcomes measurement in cleft care.DesignCleft teams that have implemented the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement Standard Set for cleft care were invited to participate in this 2-part qualitative study: (1) an exploratory survey among clinicians, health information technology professionals, and project coordinators, and (2) semistructured interviews of project leads. Thematic content analysis was performed, with organization of themes according to the dimensions of the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation and maintenance (RE-AIM) framework: reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance.ResultsFour cleft teams in Europe and North America participated in this study. Thirteen participants completed exploratory questionnaires and 5 interviewees participated in follow-up interviews. Survey responses and thematic content analysis revealed common facilitators and barriers to implementation at all sites. Teams reach patients either via email or during the clinic visit to capture patient-reported outcomes. Adopting routine data collection is enhanced by aligning priorities at the organizational and cleft team level. Streamlining workflows and developing an efficient data collection platform are necessary early on, followed by pilot testing or stepwise implementation. Regular meetings and financial resources are crucial for implementing, sustaining, analyzing collected data, and providing feedback to health care professionals and patients. Fostering patient-centered care was articulated as a positive outcome, whereas time presented challenges across all RE-AIM dimensions.ConclusionsIdentified themes can inform ongoing implementation efforts. Intentionally investing time to lay a sound foundation early on will benefit every phase of implementation and help overcome barriers such as lack of support or motivation.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Although the management of patients presenting with vertigo and dizziness in primary care has been reported to be inefficient, little is known about the primary care providers' (PCPs) perspectives, needs, and attitudes regarding vertigo management. The objective of this study was to understand which challenges and barriers PCPs see when diagnosing and treating patients presenting with vertigo or dizziness. Specifically, we wanted to identify facilitators and barriers of successful guideline implementation in order to inform the development of targeted interventions. METHODS:A theory-based interview structure was developed based on the implementation theory of capability, opportunity, and motivation for behaviour change (COM-B) using questions based on constructs from the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Transcripts of the semi-structured interviews were analysed using directed content analysis. The pathways through which guideline characteristics and supportive interventions affect the relationship between the PCPs' perceived capability, opportunity, and motivation as well as their practice of managing vertigo patients were graphically presented using the COM-B model structure. RESULTS:Twelve PCPs from Bavaria in Southern Germany participated in semi-structured interviews. Diagnostics posed the biggest challenge in vertigo management to the PCPs. Requirements for an acceptable guideline were stakeholder involvement in the development process, clarity of presentation, and high applicability. Guideline implementation might be effectively supported through educational meetings and sustained by organisational interventions. CONCLUSIONS:From the PCPs' perspective, both guideline characteristics and interventions supporting guideline implementation may help resolve challenges in vertigo management in primary care. These results should be used to guide future interventions in the primary care setting to ensure successful and targeted patient management.

Project description:PurposeDiabetes is a prevalent comorbid condition among many women with breast cancer. The roles and responsibilities of managing diabetes during cancer care are unclear, as oncologists lack interest and clinical expertise and many patients stop seeing their primary care providers (PCPs). Uncertainty around who should manage diabetes for cancer patients can result in gaps in care for survivors. We sought to elicit the perspectives of providers about a novel diabetes care delivery intervention for women undergoing chemotherapy for breast cancer.MethodsWe conducted nominal group sessions with PCPs and breast oncologists across the USA. We introduced a novel care delivery model, which involved a nurse practitioner (NP) specifically trained in diabetes to work within the oncology team to manage diabetes for women during chemotherapy. PCPs and oncologists were asked to identify potential barriers and facilitators to the intervention's success and then vote on the top three most important barriers and facilitators, separately. Votes were aggregated across sessions and presented as frequencies and weighted percentages.ResultsFrom November to December 2020, two 60-min sessions with PCPs and two 60-min sessions with breast oncologists were held virtually. In total, 29 providers participated, with 16 PCPs and 13 breast oncologists. At the health system level, financial support for the NP-led intervention was identified as the most important barrier across both provider types. Clearly defined roles for each care team member were identified as the most important facilitator at the care team level. At the patient level, lack of cancer-specific diabetes education was identified as an important barrier.ConclusionOur findings underscore the need to engage various stakeholders including policy makers, institutional leadership, care team members, and patients to improve diabetes care for patients undergoing chemotherapy for breast cancer. As such, multi-disciplinary interventions are warranted to increase awareness, engagement, and self-management practices among breast cancer patients with diabetes.

Project description:IntroductionClinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are designed to improve the quality of care and reduce unjustified individual variation in clinical practice. Knowledge of the barriers and facilitators that influence the implementation of the CPG recommendations is the first step in creating strategies to improve health outcomes. The present systematic meta-review sought to explore the barriers and facilitators for the implementation of CPGs.MethodsA search was conducted in the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Health System Evidence and International Guideline Library (G-I-N) databases. Systematic reviews of qualitative, quantitative or mixed-methods studies that identified barriers or facilitators for the implementation of CPGs were included. The selection of the title and abstract, the evaluation of the full text, extraction of the data and the quality assessment were carried out by two independent reviewers. To summarise the evidence, we grouped the barriers and facilitators according to the following contexts: political and social, health organisational system, guidelines, health professionals and patients.ResultsOverall, 25 systematic reviews were selected. The relevant barriers in the social-political context were the absence of a leader, difficulties with teamwork and a lack of agreement with colleagues. Relevant barriers in the health system were a lack of time, financial problems and a lack of specialised personnel. Barriers of the CPGs included a lack of clarity and a lack of credibility in the evidence. Regarding the health professional, a lack of knowledge about the CPG and confidence in oneself were relevant. Regarding patients, a negative attitude towards implementation, a lack of knowledge about the CPG and sociocultural beliefs played a role. Some of the most frequent facilitators were consistent leadership, commitment of the members of the team, administrative support of the institution, existence of multidisciplinary teams, application of technology to improve the practice and education regarding the guidelines.ConclusionsThe barriers and facilitators described in this review are factors that influence the implementation of evidence in clinical practice. Knowledge of these factors should contribute to the development of a theoretical basis for the creation of CPG implementation strategies to improve professional practice and health outcomes for patients.

Project description:BackgroundAcute aortic syndrome (AAS) is an uncommon, life-threatening emergency that is frequently misdiagnosed. The 2020 Canadian clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis of AAS incorporate all available evidence into four key recommendations. In order to facilitate the implementation of these recommendations, a clinical decision aid was created. The objective of this study was to identify barriers and facilitators among physicians prior to implementation of the guideline recommendations in a multicentre step wedge cluster randomized control trial.MethodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews with nine emergency room physicians working at five sites distributed between urban academic and rural settings. We used purposive sampling, contacting physicians until data saturation was reached. Interview questions were designed to understand potential barriers and facilitators to guideline recommendation uptake and use. Responses were analysed according to the Theoretical Domains Framework, and overarching themes describing these barriers and facilitators were identified.ResultsTwo themes and six subthemes encompassing 13 theoretical domains were identified. These included clinical decision-making support, awareness of the evidence, social factors, expected consequences, ability of physicians to acquire the necessary data and ease of use. A majority of interviewees anticipated that the guideline recommendations would support clinical decision making and more effectively risk-stratify patients. Other facilitators included endorsement of the guidelines by professional organizations and peers. Barriers to implementation include the fact that laboratory testing and knowledge of the rationale for its use in the investigation of AAS were not widespread. The complexity of the clinical decision aid and concerns about test specificity were also identified as potential barriers to use.ConclusionPhysicians were amenable to using the AAS guideline recommendations to support clinical decision-making and to reduce resource use. A structured intervention should be developed to address the identified barriers and leverage the facilitators in order to ensure successful implementation. Our findings may have implications for the implementation of other guidelines used in emergency departments.

Project description:BackgroundSeveral guideline organizations produce patient versions of clinical practice guidelines (PVGs) which translate recommendations into simple language. A former study of our working group revealed that few guideline organizations publish their methods used to develop PVGs. Clear definitions of PVGs do not prevail and their purposes often remain unclear. We aimed to explore experts' perspectives on developing, disseminating and implementing PVGs to discuss and incorporate these experiences when consenting on methodological guidance and further improving PVGs.MethodsWe conducted 17 semi-structured telephone interviews with international experts working with PVGs from September 2021 through January 2022. We conducted the interviews in English or German, they were recorded and transcribed verbatim. We utilized Mayring's qualitative content analysis with MAXQDA software to analyze the data.ResultsIn two interviews two participants were interviewed at the same time. This resulted in a total of 19 participants from 16 different organizations and eight different countries participated. Most were female (16/19) and their experience in working with PVGs ranged from 1 to 20 years. All follow methodological standards when developing PVGs, but the extent of these standards and their public accessibility differs. Aims and target groups of PVGs vary between organizations. Facilitators for developing PVGs are working with a multidisciplinary team, financial resources, consultation processes and a high-quality underlying CPG. Facilitators for disseminating and implementing PVGs are using various strategies. Barriers, on the other hand, are the lack of these factors. All participants mentioned patient involvement as a key aspect in PVG development.ConclusionThe steps in the PVG development process are largely similar across the countries. Focus is placed on the involvement of patients in the development process, although the extent of participation varies. The experts collectively attribute great importance to PVGs overall, but in order to constantly adapt to medical progress and changing conditions, the focus in the future may be more on formats like living guidelines. Although there are different views on the mandatory development of PVGs, there is a consistent call for more transparency regarding the methodology used for PVGs.