Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Implementation Science
Published in: Implementation Science 1/2009

Open Access 01-12-2009 | Research article

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

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

Published in: Implementation Science | Issue 1/2009

Login to get access

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 × 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.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Committee to Advise the Public Health Service on Clinical Practice Guidelines, Institute of Medicine: Clinical Practice Guidelines: Directions for a New Program. 1990, Washington: National Academy Press
2.
Grol R: Success and failures in the implementation of evidence-based guidelines for clinical practice. Med Care. 2001, 39 (Suppl 2): 1146-1154.
3.
Woolf SH, Grol R, Hutchinson A, Eccles M, Grimshaw J: Clinical guidelines: potential benefits, limitations, and harms of clinical guidelines. BMJ. 1999, 318: 527-530.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
Grol R, Wensing M, Eccles M: Improving Patient Care: The Implementation of Change in Clinical Practice. 2004, Oxford: Elsevier
5.
Grimshaw J, Eccles M, Thomas R, MacLennan G, Ramsay C, Fraser C, Vale L: Toward evidence-based quality improvement. Evidence (and its limitations) of the effectiveness of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies 1966–1998. J Gen Intern Med. 2006, 21 (Suppl 2): S14-S20.PubMedPubMedCentral
6.
Grimshaw JM, Thomas RE, MacLennan G, Fraser C, Ramsay CR, Vale L, Whitty P, Eccles MP, Matowe L, Shirran L, Wensing M, Dijkstra R, Donaldson C: Effectiveness and efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies. Health Technol Assess. 2004, 8: iii-iv. 1–72CrossRefPubMed
7.
Grimshaw JM, Shirran L, Thomas R, Mowatt G, Fraser C, Bero L, Grilli R, Harvey E, Oxman A, O'Brien MA: Changing provider behavior: an overview of systematic reviews of interventions. Med Care. 2001, 39 (8 Suppl 2): II2-II45.PubMed
8.
Health Services Research Unit Commission (HSRUC): Evaluation of the impact of the HSRUC Clinical Practice Guidelines Program. Summary Report. Saskatoon, SK. 2002
9.
Brouwers MC, Graham ID, Hanna SE, Cameron DA, Browman GP: Clinicians' assessments of practice guidelines in oncology: The CAPGO survey. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004, 20: 421-426. 10.1017/S0266462304001308.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Grol R, Dalhuijsen J, Thomas S, in't Veld C, Rutten G, Mokkink H: Attributes of clinical guidelines that influence use of guidelines in general practice: observational study. BMJ. 1998, 317: 858-861.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
Grol R, Buchan H: Clinical guidelines: what can we do to increase their use?. Med J Aust. 2006, 185: 301-302.PubMed
12.
Graham ID, Logan J, Harrison MB, Straus S, Tetroe J, Caswell W, Robinson N: Lost in knowledge translation: time for a map?. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2006, 26: 13-24. 10.1002/chp.47.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Cabana M, Rand CS, Powe NR, Wu AW, Wilson MH, Abboud P-AC, Rubin HR: Why don't physicians follow clinical practice guidelines?: A framework for improvement. JAMA. 1999, 282: 1458-1465. 10.1001/jama.282.15.1458.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Rogers EM: Lessons for guidelines from the diffusion of innovations. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 1995, 21: 324-328.PubMed
15.
Mittman BS, Tonesk X, Jacobson PD: Implementing clinical practice guidelines: social influence strategies and practitioner behavior change. QRB Qual Rev Bull. 1992, 18: 413-422.PubMed
16.
Fiske ST, Taylor SE: Social cognition. 1999, New York: McGraw Hill, 2
17.
Eagly AH, Chaiken S: The psychology of attitudes. 1993, Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovic
18.
Ajzen I: From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. Action-control: From cognition to behavior. Edited by: Kuhl J, Beckman J. 1985, Heidelberg: Springer, 11-39.CrossRef
19.
Browman GP, Levine MN, Mohide EA, Hayward RS, Pritchard KI, Gafni A, Laupacis A: The practice guidelines development cycle: a conceptual tool for practice guidelines development and implementation. J Clin Oncol. 1995, 13: 502-512.PubMed
20.
Brouwers MC, Browman GP: The promise of clinical practice guidelines. Strengthening the Quality of Cancer Services in Ontario. Edited by: Sullivan T, Evans W, Angus H, Hudson A. 2003, Ottawa: CHA Press, 183-203.
21.
Evans WK, Brouwers MC, Bell CM: Commentary: Should cost of care be considered in a Clinical Practice Guideline?. JNCCN March. 2008, 6 (3): 224-6.
22.
Browman GP, Newman TE, Mohide EA, Graham ID, Levine MN, Pritchard KI, Evans WK, Maroun JA, Hodson DI, Carey MS, Cowan DH: Progress of clinical oncology guidelines development using the practice guidelines development cycle: The role of practitioner feedback. J Clin Oncol. 1998, 16: 1226-1231.PubMed
23.
Browman GP, Makarski J, Robinson P, Brouwers M: Practitioners as experts: the influence of practicing oncologists 'in-the-field' on evidence-based guideline development. J Clin Oncol. 2005, 23: 113-119. 10.1200/JCO.2005.06.179.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Browman G, Brouwers M, De Vito C: Participation patterns of oncologists in the development of clinical practice guidelines. Curr Oncol. 2000, 7: 252-257.
25.
Graham ID, Brouwers M, Davies C, Tetro J: Ontario doctors' attitudes toward and use of clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Eval Clin Pract. 2007, 13: 607-615. 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2006.00670.x.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Snijders T, Bosker R: Multilevel Analysis: An Introduction to Basic and Advanced Multilevel Modeling. 1999, London: Sage
27.
Burgers JS, Fervers B, Cluzeau F, Brouwers M, Philip T, Browman G: Predictors of health quality clinical practice guidelines: examples in oncology. Int J Qual Health Care. 2005, 17: 123-132. 10.1093/intqhc/mzi011.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Eccles MP, Hrisos S, Francis J, Kaner EF, Dickinson HO, Beyer F, Johnston M: Do self-reported intentions predict clinicians' behaviour: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2006, 1: 28-10.1186/1748-5908-1-28.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Clinicians' evaluations of, endorsements of, and intentions to use practice guidelines change over time: a retrospective analysis from an organized guideline program
Authors
Melissa Brouwers
Steven Hanna
Mona Abdel-Motagally
Jennifer Yee
Publication date
01-12-2009
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Implementation Science / Issue 1/2009
Electronic ISSN: 1748-5908
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-34

Other articles of this Issue 1/2009

Implementation Science 1/2009 Go to the issue

Research article

Development of a minimization instrument for allocation of a hospital-level performance improvement intervention to reduce waiting times in Ontario emergency departments

Research article

Evolving the theory and praxis of knowledge translation through social interaction: a social phenomenological study

Study protocol

EXACKTE2: Exploiting the clinical consultation as a knowledge transfer and exchange environment: a study protocol

Methodology

Improving clinical research and cancer care delivery in community settings: evaluating the NCI community cancer centers program

Editorial

An implementation research agenda

Debate

Lessons for non-VA care delivery systems from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Quality Enhancement Research Initiative: QUERI Series