Determinants of complexity in clinical practice guidelines: a Delphi study including perspectives from guideline developers and implementers.

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Jbi Evidence Implementation Pub Date : 2025-10-01 DOI:10.1097/XEB.0000000000000499
Marleen Corremans, Zachary Munn, Sanne Peters, Pascale Jonckheer, Heidi Parisod, Gerlinde Lenaerts, Marlène Karam, Nancy Durieux, Anne-Lise Leclercq, Ashley Boers, Herman Vandevijvere
{"title":"Determinants of complexity in clinical practice guidelines: a Delphi study including perspectives from guideline developers and implementers.","authors":"Marleen Corremans, Zachary Munn, Sanne Peters, Pascale Jonckheer, Heidi Parisod, Gerlinde Lenaerts, Marlène Karam, Nancy Durieux, Anne-Lise Leclercq, Ashley Boers, Herman Vandevijvere","doi":"10.1097/XEB.0000000000000499","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>The Medical Research Council proposed a framework to develop and implement complex interventions in practice. How to adopt these interventions is described in recommendations of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Many factors may influence the complexity of a guideline. The aim of this paper is to describe the determinants of complexity in the development and implementation of an evidence-based clinical practice guideline.A working group with 16 participants was established, consisting of a debate team and a Delphi panel. The debate team discussed online to define the key elements of the MRC's definition of a complex intervention to see whether these elements are applicable to guidelines. These elements were presented to the Delphi panel to assess their relevance.After the first round, consensus was reached on eight elements, with the inter-rater reliability varying from 0.83 to 1.00. After the second Delphi round, consensus was reached on two more elements. The consensus stated that these ten elements all define an aspect of the complexity in guidelines. There was no agreement regarding the exclusion of a specific element.Developers and end-users consider that the complexity of a guideline and its implementation is affected when the number of components, settings, targeted behaviors, and stakeholders increase; when a gap exists between the guideline and the reality of clinical practice; or when differences in education are evident between end-users. Moreover, the level of collaboration required of the different end-users, the scope of change, the level of evidence in the guideline, and the workload for end-users also determine complexity.</p><p><strong>Spanish abstract: </strong>http://links.lww.com/IJEBH/A333.</p>","PeriodicalId":48473,"journal":{"name":"Jbi Evidence Implementation","volume":" ","pages":"518-524"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12557998/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jbi Evidence Implementation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000499","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract: The Medical Research Council proposed a framework to develop and implement complex interventions in practice. How to adopt these interventions is described in recommendations of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Many factors may influence the complexity of a guideline. The aim of this paper is to describe the determinants of complexity in the development and implementation of an evidence-based clinical practice guideline.A working group with 16 participants was established, consisting of a debate team and a Delphi panel. The debate team discussed online to define the key elements of the MRC's definition of a complex intervention to see whether these elements are applicable to guidelines. These elements were presented to the Delphi panel to assess their relevance.After the first round, consensus was reached on eight elements, with the inter-rater reliability varying from 0.83 to 1.00. After the second Delphi round, consensus was reached on two more elements. The consensus stated that these ten elements all define an aspect of the complexity in guidelines. There was no agreement regarding the exclusion of a specific element.Developers and end-users consider that the complexity of a guideline and its implementation is affected when the number of components, settings, targeted behaviors, and stakeholders increase; when a gap exists between the guideline and the reality of clinical practice; or when differences in education are evident between end-users. Moreover, the level of collaboration required of the different end-users, the scope of change, the level of evidence in the guideline, and the workload for end-users also determine complexity.

Spanish abstract: http://links.lww.com/IJEBH/A333.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
临床实践指南复杂性的决定因素:一项德尔菲研究,包括指南开发者和实施者的观点。
摘要:医学研究委员会提出了一个框架来开发和实施复杂的干预措施。循证临床实践指南的建议中描述了如何采用这些干预措施。许多因素可能影响指南的复杂性。本文的目的是描述复杂性的决定因素在发展和实施循证临床实践指南。设立了一个有16名参加者的工作组,由一个辩论队和一个德尔菲小组组成。辩论小组在线讨论了MRC对复杂干预定义的关键要素,看看这些要素是否适用于指导方针。将这些要素提交给德尔菲小组以评估其相关性。第一轮后,八个要素达成共识,评分者间信度从0.83到1.00不等。在第二轮德尔菲谈判之后,又在两个方面达成了共识。共识指出,这十个要素都定义了指导方针复杂性的一个方面。对于排除某一特定因素没有达成协议。开发人员和最终用户认为,当组件、设置、目标行为和涉众的数量增加时,指南及其实现的复杂性会受到影响;当指南与临床实际存在差距时;或者当终端用户之间的教育差异很明显时。此外,不同最终用户所需的协作级别、变更的范围、指南中的证据级别以及最终用户的工作量也决定了复杂性。西班牙文摘要:http://links.lww.com/IJEBH/A333。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
13.00%
发文量
23
期刊最新文献
Does context really matter? A multi-site qualitative study identifying shared factors influencing the uptake of a digital fall prevention platform. Screening adolescents for mental health issues in primary health care settings: a best practice implementation project. Education and training requirements for health care professionals caring for patients with a peripheral intravenous catheter: a best practice implementation project. Collective agency in the implementation of computerized clinical decision support: an interpretive description study. Sedation assessment in critically ill patients under mechanical ventilation in China: a best practice implementation project.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1