Knowledge translation of clinical practice guidelines among neurologists: A mixed-methods study.

IF 2.6 3区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES PLoS ONE Pub Date : 2018-10-10 eCollection Date: 2018-01-01 DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0205280
Khara M Sauro, Samuel Wiebe, Jayna Holroyd-Leduc, Carolyn DeCoster, Hude Quan, Meaghan Bell, Nathalie Jetté
{"title":"Knowledge translation of clinical practice guidelines among neurologists: A mixed-methods study.","authors":"Khara M Sauro,&nbsp;Samuel Wiebe,&nbsp;Jayna Holroyd-Leduc,&nbsp;Carolyn DeCoster,&nbsp;Hude Quan,&nbsp;Meaghan Bell,&nbsp;Nathalie Jetté","doi":"10.1371/journal.pone.0205280","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Clinical practice guidelines have the potential to improve care, but are often not optimally implemented. Improving guideline use in clinical practice may improve care. The objective of this study was to identify the barriers and facilitators (determinants) of guidelines use among neurologists and to propose a strategy to improve guideline implementation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a mixed-methods study design. A quantitative, population-based, cross-sectional survey of Canadian neurologists was conducted. Associations between guidelines use and determinants of guidelines use were examined. Focus groups and interviews were conducted using purposeful sampling of the population. Determinants of guideline use were mapped to interventions to establish a strategy for guideline implementation among neurologists.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>38.7% (n = 311) of neurologists responded to the survey. Typically, respondents had been practicing for 16.6 years and worked in an academic institution in an urban setting. Being male and having an academic affiliation was associated with guideline use. Determinants of guideline use differed between guideline users and non-users; non-users consistently rating determinants lower than users, especially applicability. Two focus groups and one interview (n = 11) identified six main themes of determinants of guideline use: Credibility, knowledge, applicability, resources, motivation, and target audience; which was congruent with the quantitative data. The proposed knowledge translation strategy contains three pillars: guidelines development, dissemination, and interventions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Several determinants of guideline use not commonly discussed in the literature were identified (applicability, target audience, credibility). The proposed implementation strategy is a valuable resource for guideline developers and policy/decision-makers to improve knowledge translation of guidelines among neurologists.</p>","PeriodicalId":20189,"journal":{"name":"PLoS ONE","volume":" ","pages":"e0205280"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2018-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1371/journal.pone.0205280","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLoS ONE","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0205280","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2018/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Objectives: Clinical practice guidelines have the potential to improve care, but are often not optimally implemented. Improving guideline use in clinical practice may improve care. The objective of this study was to identify the barriers and facilitators (determinants) of guidelines use among neurologists and to propose a strategy to improve guideline implementation.

Methods: This was a mixed-methods study design. A quantitative, population-based, cross-sectional survey of Canadian neurologists was conducted. Associations between guidelines use and determinants of guidelines use were examined. Focus groups and interviews were conducted using purposeful sampling of the population. Determinants of guideline use were mapped to interventions to establish a strategy for guideline implementation among neurologists.

Results: 38.7% (n = 311) of neurologists responded to the survey. Typically, respondents had been practicing for 16.6 years and worked in an academic institution in an urban setting. Being male and having an academic affiliation was associated with guideline use. Determinants of guideline use differed between guideline users and non-users; non-users consistently rating determinants lower than users, especially applicability. Two focus groups and one interview (n = 11) identified six main themes of determinants of guideline use: Credibility, knowledge, applicability, resources, motivation, and target audience; which was congruent with the quantitative data. The proposed knowledge translation strategy contains three pillars: guidelines development, dissemination, and interventions.

Conclusions: Several determinants of guideline use not commonly discussed in the literature were identified (applicability, target audience, credibility). The proposed implementation strategy is a valuable resource for guideline developers and policy/decision-makers to improve knowledge translation of guidelines among neurologists.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

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
神经科医生临床实践指南的知识翻译:一项混合方法研究。
目的:临床实践指南具有改善护理的潜力,但往往没有得到最佳的实施。在临床实践中改进指南的使用可以改善护理。本研究的目的是确定神经科医生使用指南的障碍和促进因素(决定因素),并提出改进指南实施的策略。方法:采用混合方法设计。对加拿大神经科医生进行了一项定量的、以人群为基础的横断面调查。研究了指南使用和指南使用的决定因素之间的联系。焦点小组和访谈是通过有目的的人口抽样进行的。指南使用的决定因素被映射到干预措施,以建立指南在神经科医师中实施的策略。结果:38.7% (n = 311)的神经科医师回复了调查。通常,受访者已经执业16.6年,并在城市环境中的学术机构工作。男性和有学术联系与指南的使用有关。指南使用者和非指南使用者使用指南的决定因素存在差异;非用户对决定因素的评价始终低于用户,尤其是适用性。两个焦点小组和一次访谈(n = 11)确定了指南使用决定因素的六个主要主题:可信度、知识、适用性、资源、动机和目标受众;这与定量数据一致。所提出的知识翻译策略包含三个支柱:指南制定、传播和干预。结论:确定了文献中不常讨论的指南使用的几个决定因素(适用性、目标受众、可信度)。所提出的实施策略为指南制定者和政策/决策者提供了宝贵的资源,以改善神经科医生对指南的知识翻译。
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
PLoS ONE
PLoS ONE 生物-生物学
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
5.40%
发文量
14242
审稿时长
3.7 months
期刊介绍: PLOS ONE is an international, peer-reviewed, open-access, online publication. PLOS ONE welcomes reports on primary research from any scientific discipline. It provides: * Open-access—freely accessible online, authors retain copyright * Fast publication times * Peer review by expert, practicing researchers * Post-publication tools to indicate quality and impact * Community-based dialogue on articles * Worldwide media coverage
期刊最新文献
Social determinants of health and patient outcomes in Long-term Acute Care Hospitals: A scoping review. Effects of a native avian predator (weka; Gallirallus australis) and colony density on breeding success of a burrow-nesting seabird (tītī; Ardenna grisea). Episodic memory differences in social and non-social contexts. TFP-Net: A temporal-feature-prototypical network for CRM optimization and cold-start mitigation. Estimating the velocity and direction of African Swine Fever spread in wild boar populations in South Korea using Trend-Surface Analysis.
×
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