Display options
Cite
Brouwers M, Hanna S, Abdel-Motagally M, et al. Clinicians' evaluations of, endorsements of, and intentions to use practice guidelines change over time: a retrospective analysis from an organized guideline program. Implement Sci. 2009;4:34doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-4-34.
Brouwers, M., Hanna, S., Abdel-Motagally, M., & Yee, J. (2009). Clinicians' evaluations of, endorsements of, and intentions to use practice guidelines change over time: a retrospective analysis from an organized guideline program. Implementation science : IS, 434. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-34
Brouwers, Melissa, et al. "Clinicians' evaluations of, endorsements of, and intentions to use practice guidelines change over time: a retrospective analysis from an organized guideline program." Implementation science : IS vol. 4 (2009): 34. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-34
Brouwers M, Hanna S, Abdel-Motagally M, Yee J. Clinicians' evaluations of, endorsements of, and intentions to use practice guidelines change over time: a retrospective analysis from an organized guideline program. Implement Sci. 2009 Jun 28;4:34. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-4-34. PMID: 19558716; PMCID: PMC2715368.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Implement Sci. 2009 Jun 28;4:34. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-4-34.

Clinicians' evaluations of, endorsements of, and intentions to use practice guidelines change over time: a retrospective analysis from an organized guideline program.

Implementation science : IS

Melissa Brouwers, Steven Hanna, Mona Abdel-Motagally, Jennifer Yee

Affiliations

  1. Department of Oncology, McMaster University and Program in Evidence-based Care, Cancer Care Ontario, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. [email protected]

PMID: 19558716 PMCID: PMC2715368 DOI: 10.1186/1748-5908-4-34

Abstract

PURPOSE: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) can improve clinical care but uptake and application are inconsistent. Objectives were: to examine temporal trends in clinicians' evaluations of, endorsements of, and intentions to use cancer CPGs developed by an established CPG program; and to evaluate how predictor variables (clinician characteristics, beliefs, and attitudes) are associated with these trends.

DESIGN AND METHODS: Between 1999 and 2005, 756 clinicians evaluated 84 Cancer Care Ontario CPGs, yielding 4,091 surveys that targeted four CPG quality domains (rigour, applicability, acceptability, and comparative value), clinicians' endorsement levels, and clinicians' intentions to use CPGs in practice.

RESULTS: Time: In contrast to the applicability and intention to use in practice scores, there were small but statistically significant annual net gains in ratings for rigour, acceptability, comparative value, and CPG endorsement measures (p < 0.05 for all rating categories).

PREDICTORS: In 17 comparisons, ratings were significantly higher among clinicians having the most favourable beliefs and most positive attitudes and lowest for those having the least favourable beliefs and most negative attitudes (p < 0.05). Interactions Time x

PREDICTORS: Over time, differences in outcomes among clinicians decreased due to positive net gains in scores by clinicians whose beliefs and attitudes were least favorable.

CONCLUSION: Individual differences among clinicians largely explain variances in outcomes measured. Continued engagement of clinicians least receptive to CPGs may be worthwhile because they are the ones showing most significant gains in CPG quality ratings, endorsement ratings, and intentions to use in practice ratings.

References

  1. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004 Fall;20(4):421-6 - PubMed
  2. J Gen Intern Med. 2006 Feb;21 Suppl 2:S14-20 - PubMed
  3. J Clin Oncol. 1998 Mar;16(3):1226-31 - PubMed
  4. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2008 Mar;6(3):224-6 - PubMed
  5. Med Care. 2001 Aug;39(8 Suppl 2):II2-45 - PubMed
  6. BMJ. 1998 Sep 26;317(7162):858-61 - PubMed
  7. Implement Sci. 2006 Nov 21;1:28 - PubMed
  8. QRB Qual Rev Bull. 1992 Dec;18(12):413-22 - PubMed
  9. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Jan 1;23(1):113-9 - PubMed
  10. BMJ. 1999 Feb 20;318(7182):527-30 - PubMed
  11. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 1995 Jul;21(7):324-8 - PubMed
  12. Int J Qual Health Care. 2005 Apr;17(2):123-32 - PubMed
  13. Med Care. 2001 Aug;39(8 Suppl 2):II46-54 - PubMed
  14. J Clin Oncol. 1995 Feb;13(2):502-12 - PubMed
  15. JAMA. 1999 Oct 20;282(15):1458-65 - PubMed
  16. J Eval Clin Pract. 2007 Aug;13(4):607-15 - PubMed
  17. Med J Aust. 2006 Sep 18;185(6):301-2 - PubMed
  18. Health Technol Assess. 2004 Feb;8(6):iii-iv, 1-72 - PubMed
  19. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2006 Winter;26(1):13-24 - PubMed

Publication Types