Cargando…

Refining a taxonomy for guideline implementation: results of an exercise in abstract classification

BACKGROUND: To better understand the efficacy of various implementation strategies, improved methods for describing and classifying the nature of these strategies are urgently required. The aim of this study was to develop and pilot the feasibility of a taxonomy to classify the nature and content of...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mazza, Danielle, Bairstow, Phillip, Buchan, Heather, Chakraborty, Samantha Paubrey, Van Hecke, Oliver, Grech, Cathy, Kunnamo, Ilkka
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3606141/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23497520
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-32
_version_ 1782263951982067712
author Mazza, Danielle
Bairstow, Phillip
Buchan, Heather
Chakraborty, Samantha Paubrey
Van Hecke, Oliver
Grech, Cathy
Kunnamo, Ilkka
author_facet Mazza, Danielle
Bairstow, Phillip
Buchan, Heather
Chakraborty, Samantha Paubrey
Van Hecke, Oliver
Grech, Cathy
Kunnamo, Ilkka
author_sort Mazza, Danielle
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: To better understand the efficacy of various implementation strategies, improved methods for describing and classifying the nature of these strategies are urgently required. The aim of this study was to develop and pilot the feasibility of a taxonomy to classify the nature and content of implementation strategies. METHODS: A draft implementation taxonomy was developed based on the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) data collection checklist. The draft taxonomy had four domains (professional, financial, organisational and regulatory) covering 49 distinct strategies. We piloted the draft taxonomy by using it to classify the implementation strategies described in the conference abstracts of the implementation stream of the 2010 Guideline International Network Conference. Five authors classified the strategies in each abstract individually. Final categorisation was then carried out in a face-to-face consensus meeting involving three authors. RESULTS: The implementation strategies described in 71 conference abstracts were classified. Approximately 15.5% of abstracts utilised strategies that could not be categorised using the draft taxonomy. Of those strategies that could be categorised, the majority were professionally focused (57%). A total of 41% of projects used only one implementation strategy, with 29% using two and 31% three or more. The three most commonly used strategies were changes in quality assurance, quality improvement and/or performance measurement systems, changes in information and communication technology, and distribution of guideline materials (via hard-copy, audio-visual and/or electronic means). CONCLUSIONS: Further refinement of the draft taxonomy is required to provide hierarchical dimensions and granularity, particularly in the areas of patient-focused interventions, those concerned with audit and feedback and quality improvement, and electronic forms of implementation, including electronic decision support.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3606141
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-36061412013-03-23 Refining a taxonomy for guideline implementation: results of an exercise in abstract classification Mazza, Danielle Bairstow, Phillip Buchan, Heather Chakraborty, Samantha Paubrey Van Hecke, Oliver Grech, Cathy Kunnamo, Ilkka Implement Sci Research BACKGROUND: To better understand the efficacy of various implementation strategies, improved methods for describing and classifying the nature of these strategies are urgently required. The aim of this study was to develop and pilot the feasibility of a taxonomy to classify the nature and content of implementation strategies. METHODS: A draft implementation taxonomy was developed based on the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) data collection checklist. The draft taxonomy had four domains (professional, financial, organisational and regulatory) covering 49 distinct strategies. We piloted the draft taxonomy by using it to classify the implementation strategies described in the conference abstracts of the implementation stream of the 2010 Guideline International Network Conference. Five authors classified the strategies in each abstract individually. Final categorisation was then carried out in a face-to-face consensus meeting involving three authors. RESULTS: The implementation strategies described in 71 conference abstracts were classified. Approximately 15.5% of abstracts utilised strategies that could not be categorised using the draft taxonomy. Of those strategies that could be categorised, the majority were professionally focused (57%). A total of 41% of projects used only one implementation strategy, with 29% using two and 31% three or more. The three most commonly used strategies were changes in quality assurance, quality improvement and/or performance measurement systems, changes in information and communication technology, and distribution of guideline materials (via hard-copy, audio-visual and/or electronic means). CONCLUSIONS: Further refinement of the draft taxonomy is required to provide hierarchical dimensions and granularity, particularly in the areas of patient-focused interventions, those concerned with audit and feedback and quality improvement, and electronic forms of implementation, including electronic decision support. BioMed Central 2013-03-15 /pmc/articles/PMC3606141/ /pubmed/23497520 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-32 Text en Copyright ©2013 Mazza et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research
Mazza, Danielle
Bairstow, Phillip
Buchan, Heather
Chakraborty, Samantha Paubrey
Van Hecke, Oliver
Grech, Cathy
Kunnamo, Ilkka
Refining a taxonomy for guideline implementation: results of an exercise in abstract classification
title Refining a taxonomy for guideline implementation: results of an exercise in abstract classification
title_full Refining a taxonomy for guideline implementation: results of an exercise in abstract classification
title_fullStr Refining a taxonomy for guideline implementation: results of an exercise in abstract classification
title_full_unstemmed Refining a taxonomy for guideline implementation: results of an exercise in abstract classification
title_short Refining a taxonomy for guideline implementation: results of an exercise in abstract classification
title_sort refining a taxonomy for guideline implementation: results of an exercise in abstract classification
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3606141/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23497520
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-32
work_keys_str_mv AT mazzadanielle refiningataxonomyforguidelineimplementationresultsofanexerciseinabstractclassification
AT bairstowphillip refiningataxonomyforguidelineimplementationresultsofanexerciseinabstractclassification
AT buchanheather refiningataxonomyforguidelineimplementationresultsofanexerciseinabstractclassification
AT chakrabortysamanthapaubrey refiningataxonomyforguidelineimplementationresultsofanexerciseinabstractclassification
AT vanheckeoliver refiningataxonomyforguidelineimplementationresultsofanexerciseinabstractclassification
AT grechcathy refiningataxonomyforguidelineimplementationresultsofanexerciseinabstractclassification
AT kunnamoilkka refiningataxonomyforguidelineimplementationresultsofanexerciseinabstractclassification