Number and type of guideline implementation tools varies by guideline, clinical condition, country of origin, and type of developer organization: content analysis of guidelines
Abstract Background Guideline implementation tools (GI tools) can improve clinician behavior and patient outcomes. Analyses of guidelines published before 2010 found that many did not offer GI tools. Since 2010 standards, frameworks and instructions for GI tools have emerged. This study analyzed the...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2017-11-01
|
| Series: | Implementation Science |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13012-017-0668-7 |
| _version_ | 1819070387156156416 |
|---|---|
| author | Laurel Liang Jhoni Abi Safi Anna R. Gagliardi members of the Guidelines International Network Implementation Working Group |
| author_facet | Laurel Liang Jhoni Abi Safi Anna R. Gagliardi members of the Guidelines International Network Implementation Working Group |
| author_sort | Laurel Liang |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Background Guideline implementation tools (GI tools) can improve clinician behavior and patient outcomes. Analyses of guidelines published before 2010 found that many did not offer GI tools. Since 2010 standards, frameworks and instructions for GI tools have emerged. This study analyzed the number and types of GI tools offered by guidelines published in 2010 or later. Methods Content analysis and a published GI tool framework were used to categorize GI tools by condition, country, and type of organization. English-language guidelines on arthritis, asthma, colorectal cancer, depression, diabetes, heart failure, and stroke management were identified in the National Guideline Clearinghouse. Screening and data extraction were in triplicate. Findings were reported with summary statistics. Results Eighty-five (67.5%) of 126 eligible guidelines published between 2010 and 2017 offered one or more of a total of 464 GI tools. The mean number of GI tools per guideline was 5.5 (median 4.0, range 1 to 28) and increased over time. The majority of GI tools were for clinicians (239, 51.5%), few were for patients (113, 24.4%), and fewer still were to support implementation (66, 14.3%) or evaluation (46, 9.9%). Most clinician GI tools were guideline summaries (116, 48.5%), and most patient GI tools were condition-specific information (92, 81.4%). Government agencies (patient 23.5%, clinician 28.9%, implementation 24.1%, evaluation 23.5%) and developers in the UK (patient 18.5%, clinician 25.2%, implementation 27.2%, evaluation 29.1%) were more likely to generate guidelines that offered all four types of GI tools. Professional societies were more likely to generate guidelines that included clinician GI tools. Conclusions Many guidelines do not include any GI tools, or a variety of GI tools for different stakeholders that may be more likely to prompt guideline uptake (point-of-care forms or checklists for clinicians, decision-making or self-management tools for patients, implementation and evaluation tools for managers and policy-makers). While this may vary by country and type of organization, and suggests that developers could improve the range of GI tools they develop, further research is needed to identify determinants and potential solutions. Research is also needed to examine the cost-effectiveness of various types of GI tools so that developers know where to direct their efforts and scarce resources. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-21T17:05:07Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-85f60995440449588c229814f66f139d |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1748-5908 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-21T17:05:07Z |
| publishDate | 2017-11-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Implementation Science |
| spelling | doaj.art-85f60995440449588c229814f66f139d2022-12-21T18:56:32ZengBMCImplementation Science1748-59082017-11-0112111210.1186/s13012-017-0668-7Number and type of guideline implementation tools varies by guideline, clinical condition, country of origin, and type of developer organization: content analysis of guidelinesLaurel Liang0Jhoni Abi Safi1Anna R. Gagliardi2members of the Guidelines International Network Implementation Working GroupToronto General Hospital Research InstituteEnvisolToronto General Hospital Research InstituteAbstract Background Guideline implementation tools (GI tools) can improve clinician behavior and patient outcomes. Analyses of guidelines published before 2010 found that many did not offer GI tools. Since 2010 standards, frameworks and instructions for GI tools have emerged. This study analyzed the number and types of GI tools offered by guidelines published in 2010 or later. Methods Content analysis and a published GI tool framework were used to categorize GI tools by condition, country, and type of organization. English-language guidelines on arthritis, asthma, colorectal cancer, depression, diabetes, heart failure, and stroke management were identified in the National Guideline Clearinghouse. Screening and data extraction were in triplicate. Findings were reported with summary statistics. Results Eighty-five (67.5%) of 126 eligible guidelines published between 2010 and 2017 offered one or more of a total of 464 GI tools. The mean number of GI tools per guideline was 5.5 (median 4.0, range 1 to 28) and increased over time. The majority of GI tools were for clinicians (239, 51.5%), few were for patients (113, 24.4%), and fewer still were to support implementation (66, 14.3%) or evaluation (46, 9.9%). Most clinician GI tools were guideline summaries (116, 48.5%), and most patient GI tools were condition-specific information (92, 81.4%). Government agencies (patient 23.5%, clinician 28.9%, implementation 24.1%, evaluation 23.5%) and developers in the UK (patient 18.5%, clinician 25.2%, implementation 27.2%, evaluation 29.1%) were more likely to generate guidelines that offered all four types of GI tools. Professional societies were more likely to generate guidelines that included clinician GI tools. Conclusions Many guidelines do not include any GI tools, or a variety of GI tools for different stakeholders that may be more likely to prompt guideline uptake (point-of-care forms or checklists for clinicians, decision-making or self-management tools for patients, implementation and evaluation tools for managers and policy-makers). While this may vary by country and type of organization, and suggests that developers could improve the range of GI tools they develop, further research is needed to identify determinants and potential solutions. Research is also needed to examine the cost-effectiveness of various types of GI tools so that developers know where to direct their efforts and scarce resources.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13012-017-0668-7GuidelinesImplementationGuideline implementation toolsContent analysis |
| spellingShingle | Laurel Liang Jhoni Abi Safi Anna R. Gagliardi members of the Guidelines International Network Implementation Working Group Number and type of guideline implementation tools varies by guideline, clinical condition, country of origin, and type of developer organization: content analysis of guidelines Implementation Science Guidelines Implementation Guideline implementation tools Content analysis |
| title | Number and type of guideline implementation tools varies by guideline, clinical condition, country of origin, and type of developer organization: content analysis of guidelines |
| title_full | Number and type of guideline implementation tools varies by guideline, clinical condition, country of origin, and type of developer organization: content analysis of guidelines |
| title_fullStr | Number and type of guideline implementation tools varies by guideline, clinical condition, country of origin, and type of developer organization: content analysis of guidelines |
| title_full_unstemmed | Number and type of guideline implementation tools varies by guideline, clinical condition, country of origin, and type of developer organization: content analysis of guidelines |
| title_short | Number and type of guideline implementation tools varies by guideline, clinical condition, country of origin, and type of developer organization: content analysis of guidelines |
| title_sort | number and type of guideline implementation tools varies by guideline clinical condition country of origin and type of developer organization content analysis of guidelines |
| topic | Guidelines Implementation Guideline implementation tools Content analysis |
| url | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13012-017-0668-7 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT laurelliang numberandtypeofguidelineimplementationtoolsvariesbyguidelineclinicalconditioncountryoforiginandtypeofdeveloperorganizationcontentanalysisofguidelines AT jhoniabisafi numberandtypeofguidelineimplementationtoolsvariesbyguidelineclinicalconditioncountryoforiginandtypeofdeveloperorganizationcontentanalysisofguidelines AT annargagliardi numberandtypeofguidelineimplementationtoolsvariesbyguidelineclinicalconditioncountryoforiginandtypeofdeveloperorganizationcontentanalysisofguidelines AT membersoftheguidelinesinternationalnetworkimplementationworkinggroup numberandtypeofguidelineimplementationtoolsvariesbyguidelineclinicalconditioncountryoforiginandtypeofdeveloperorganizationcontentanalysisofguidelines |