Cargando…

Trends in guideline implementation: a scoping systematic review

BACKGROUND: There is currently no reliable way to choose strategies that are appropriate for implementing guidelines facing different barriers. This study examined trends in guideline implementation by topic over a 10-year period to explore whether and how strategies may be suitable for addressing d...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gagliardi, Anna R, Alhabib, Samia
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4409784/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25895908
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0247-8
_version_ 1782368237377290240
author Gagliardi, Anna R
Alhabib, Samia
author_facet Gagliardi, Anna R
Alhabib, Samia
author_sort Gagliardi, Anna R
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: There is currently no reliable way to choose strategies that are appropriate for implementing guidelines facing different barriers. This study examined trends in guideline implementation by topic over a 10-year period to explore whether and how strategies may be suitable for addressing differing barriers. METHODS: A scoping systematic review was performed. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from 2004 to 2013 for studies that evaluated the implementation of guidelines on arthritis, diabetes, colorectal cancer and heart failure. Data on study characteristics, reason for implementation (new guideline or quality improvement), implementation strategy used, rationale for selecting that strategy and reported impact were extracted and summarized. Interventions were mapped against a published taxonomy of guideline implementation strategies. RESULTS: The search resulted in 1,709 articles; 156 were retrieved and 127 were excluded largely because they did not evaluate guideline implementation, leaving 32 eligible for review (4 arthritis, 3 colorectal cancer, 21 diabetes, 4 heart failure). Six of 7 randomized trials and 8 of 25 observational studies had a low risk of bias. Most studies promoted guideline use for quality improvement (78.0%). Few studies rationalized strategy choice (18.8%). Most employed multiple approaches and strategies, most often educational meetings and print material for professionals or patients. Few studies employed organizational, financial or regulatory approaches. Strategies employed that were unique to the published taxonomy included professional (print material, tailoring guidelines, self-audit training or material) and patient strategies (education, counselling, group interaction, print material, reminders). Most studies achieved positive impact (87.5%). This did not appear to be associated with guideline topic, use of theory or barrier assessment, or number or type of implementation approaches and strategies. CONCLUSIONS: While few studies were eligible, limiting insight on how to choose implementation strategies that address guideline-specific barriers, this review identified other important findings. Education for professionals or patients and print material were the most commonly employed strategies for translating guidelines to practice. Mapping of strategies onto the published taxonomy identified gaps in guideline implementation that represent opportunities for future research and expanded the taxonomy. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0247-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4409784
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-44097842015-04-26 Trends in guideline implementation: a scoping systematic review Gagliardi, Anna R Alhabib, Samia Implement Sci Systematic Review BACKGROUND: There is currently no reliable way to choose strategies that are appropriate for implementing guidelines facing different barriers. This study examined trends in guideline implementation by topic over a 10-year period to explore whether and how strategies may be suitable for addressing differing barriers. METHODS: A scoping systematic review was performed. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from 2004 to 2013 for studies that evaluated the implementation of guidelines on arthritis, diabetes, colorectal cancer and heart failure. Data on study characteristics, reason for implementation (new guideline or quality improvement), implementation strategy used, rationale for selecting that strategy and reported impact were extracted and summarized. Interventions were mapped against a published taxonomy of guideline implementation strategies. RESULTS: The search resulted in 1,709 articles; 156 were retrieved and 127 were excluded largely because they did not evaluate guideline implementation, leaving 32 eligible for review (4 arthritis, 3 colorectal cancer, 21 diabetes, 4 heart failure). Six of 7 randomized trials and 8 of 25 observational studies had a low risk of bias. Most studies promoted guideline use for quality improvement (78.0%). Few studies rationalized strategy choice (18.8%). Most employed multiple approaches and strategies, most often educational meetings and print material for professionals or patients. Few studies employed organizational, financial or regulatory approaches. Strategies employed that were unique to the published taxonomy included professional (print material, tailoring guidelines, self-audit training or material) and patient strategies (education, counselling, group interaction, print material, reminders). Most studies achieved positive impact (87.5%). This did not appear to be associated with guideline topic, use of theory or barrier assessment, or number or type of implementation approaches and strategies. CONCLUSIONS: While few studies were eligible, limiting insight on how to choose implementation strategies that address guideline-specific barriers, this review identified other important findings. Education for professionals or patients and print material were the most commonly employed strategies for translating guidelines to practice. Mapping of strategies onto the published taxonomy identified gaps in guideline implementation that represent opportunities for future research and expanded the taxonomy. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0247-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2015-04-21 /pmc/articles/PMC4409784/ /pubmed/25895908 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0247-8 Text en © Gagliardi and Alhabib; licensee BioMed Central. 2015 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Systematic Review
Gagliardi, Anna R
Alhabib, Samia
Trends in guideline implementation: a scoping systematic review
title Trends in guideline implementation: a scoping systematic review
title_full Trends in guideline implementation: a scoping systematic review
title_fullStr Trends in guideline implementation: a scoping systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Trends in guideline implementation: a scoping systematic review
title_short Trends in guideline implementation: a scoping systematic review
title_sort trends in guideline implementation: a scoping systematic review
topic Systematic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4409784/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25895908
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0247-8
work_keys_str_mv AT gagliardiannar trendsinguidelineimplementationascopingsystematicreview
AT alhabibsamia trendsinguidelineimplementationascopingsystematicreview
AT trendsinguidelineimplementationascopingsystematicreview