Dataset Information

A scoping review of theories used to investigate clinician adherence to clinical practice guidelines.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Routine utilization of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) is an effective strategy to optimize patient care and reduce practice variation. Healthcare professionals' failure to adhere to CPGs introduces risks to both patients and the sustainability of healthcare systems. The integration of theory to investigate adherence provides greater insight into the often complex reasons for suboptimal behaviors.

Aim

To determine the coverage of literature surrounding the use of theory in studies of CPG adherence, report the key findings and identify the knowledge gaps.

Method

In April 2021, three bibliographic databases were searched for studies published since January 2010, adopting theory to investigate health professionals' adherence to CPGs. Two reviewers independently screened the articles for eligibility and charted the data. A narrative approach to synthesis was employed.

Results

The review includes 12 articles. Studies were limited to primarily investigations of physicians, quantitative designs, single disease states and few countries. The use of behavioral theories facilitated pooling of data of barriers and facilitators of adherence. The domains and constructs of a number of the reported theories are captured within the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF); the most common barriers aligned with the TDF domain of environmental context and resources, fewer studies reported facilitators.

Conclusion

There is emerging use of behavioral theories investigating physicians' adherence to CPGs. Although limited in number, these studies present specific insight into common barriers and facilitators, thus providing valuable evidence for refining existing and future implementation strategies. Similar investigations of other health professionals are warranted.

SUBMITTER: Stewart D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9938823 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A scoping review of theories used to investigate clinician adherence to clinical practice guidelines.

Stewart Derek D Al Hail Moza M Al-Shaibi Samaher S Hussain Tarteel Ali TA Abdelkader Nada Nabil NN Pallivalapila Abdulrouf A Thomas Binny B El Kassem Wessam W Hanssens Yolande Y Nazar Zachariah Z

International journal of clinical pharmacy 20221116 1

<h4>Background</h4>Routine utilization of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) is an effective strategy to optimize patient care and reduce practice variation. Healthcare professionals' failure to adhere to CPGs introduces risks to both patients and the sustainability of healthcare systems. The integration of theory to investigate adherence provides greater insight into the often complex reasons for suboptimal behaviors.<h4>Aim</h4>To determine the coverage of literature surroundin ...[more]

PMID: 36385205

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionDeprescribing (medication dose reduction or cessation) is an integral component of appropriate prescribing. The extent to which deprescribing recommendations are included in clinical practice guidelines is unclear. This scoping review aimed to identify guidelines that contain deprescribing recommendations, qualitatively explore the content and format of deprescribing recommendations and estimate the proportion of guidelines that contain deprescribing recommendations.MethodsBibliographic databases and Google were searched for guidelines published in English from January 2012 to November 2022. Guideline registries were searched from January 2017 to February 2023. Two reviewers independently screened records from databases and Google for guidelines containing one or more deprescribing recommendations. A 10% sample of the guideline registries was screened to identify eligible guidelines and estimate the proportion of guidelines containing a deprescribing recommendation. Guideline and recommendation characteristics were extracted and language features of deprescribing recommendations including content, form, complexity and readability were examined using a conventional content analysis and the SHeLL Health Literacy Editor tool.Results80 guidelines containing 316 deprescribing recommendations were included. Deprescribing recommendations had substantial variability in their format and terminology. Most guidelines contained recommendations regarding for who (75%, n=60), what (99%, n=89) and when or why (91%, n=73) to deprescribe, however, fewer guidelines (58%, n=46) contained detailed guidance on how to deprescribe. Approximately 29% of guidelines identified from the registries sample (n=14/49) contained one or more deprescribing recommendations.ConclusionsDeprescribing recommendations are increasingly being incorporated into guidelines, however, many guidelines do not contain clear and actionable recommendations on how to deprescribe which may limit effective implementation in clinical practice. A co-designed template or best practice guide, containing information on aspects of deprescribing recommendations that are essential or preferred by end-users should be developed and employed.Trial registration numberosf.io/fbex4.

Project description:BackgroundGlobally, millions of people die and many more develop disabilities resulting from injuries each year. Most people who die from injuries do so before they are transported to hospital. Thus, reliable, pragmatic, and evidence-based prehospital guidance for various injuries is essential. We systematically mapped and described prehospital clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for injuries in the global context, as well as prioritised injury topics for guidance development and adolopment.MethodsThis study was sequentially conducted in three phases: a scoping review for CPGs (Phase I), identification and refinement of gaps in CPGs (Phase II), and ranking and prioritisation of gaps in CPGs (Phase III). For Phase I, we searched PubMed, SCOPUS, and Trip Database; guideline repositories and websites up to 23rd May 2021. Two authors in duplicate independently screened titles and abstract, and full-text as well as extracted data of eligible CPGs. Guidelines had to meet 60% minimum methodological quality according to rigour of development domain in AGREE II. The second and third phases involved 17 participants from 9 African countries and 1 from Europe who participated in a virtual stakeholder engagement workshop held on 5 April 2022, and followed by an online ranking process.ResultsFifty-eight CPGs were included out of 3,427 guidance documents obtained and screened. 39/58 (67%) were developed de novo compared to 19 that were developed using alternative approaches. Twenty-five out of 58 guidelines (43%) were developed by bodies in countries within the WHO European Region, while only one guideline was targeted to the African context. Twenty-five (43%) CPGs targeted emergency medical service providers, while 13 (22%) targeted first aid providers (laypeople). Forty-three CPGs (74%) targeted people of all ages. The 58 guidance documents contained 32 injury topics. Injuries linked to road traffic accidents such as traumatic brain injuries and chest injuries were among the top prioritised topics for future guideline development by the workshop participants.ConclusionThis study highlights the availability, gaps and priority injury topics for future guideline development/adolopment, especially for the African context. Further research is needed to evaluate the recommendations in the 58 included CPGs for possible adaptation to the African context.

Project description:ObjectiveThis scoping review aims to provide an overview of how theories were used in the development or evaluation of social prescribing (SP) intervention studies.BackgroundSP describes a patient pathway where general practitioners (GPs) connect patients with community activities through referrals to link workers. This review seeks to understand the explanations provided for the outcomes and implementation process of SP.Inclusion criteriaStudies using a defined theory to develop or evaluate a specific SP intervention in primary care and the community sector.MethodsThis scoping review was conducted in accordance with JBI methodology. The following databases were searched on 8th of July 2022: PubMed, ASSIA, Cochrane, Cinahl, PsycINFO, Social Care Online, Sociological Abstracts, Scopus, and Web of Science. The search only considered English language texts. Additional literature was identified by searching relevant web pages and by contacting experts. The selection of sources and the data extraction was done by two reviewers independently.ResultsThe search resulted in 4240 reports, of which 18 were included in the scoping review. Of these, 16 were conducted in the UK, one in Canada and one in Australia. The majority of reports employed a qualitative approach (11/18). Three were study protocols. 11 distinct theories were applied to explain outcomes (4 theories), differences in outcomes (3 theories), and the implementation of the intervention (4 theories). In terms of practical application, the identified theories were predominantly used to explain and understand qualitative findings. Only one theory was used to define variables for hypothesis testing. All theories were used for the evaluation and none for the development of SP.ConclusionThe theories influenced which outcomes the evaluation assessed, which causal pathway was expected to generate these outcomes, and which methodological approaches were used. All three groups of theories that were identified focus on relevant aspects of SP: fostering positive patient/community outcomes, addressing inequalities by considering the context of someone's individual circumstances, and successfully implementing SP by collaboratively working across professions and institutional boundaries. Additional insight is required regarding the optimal use of theories in practical applications.

Project description:ObjectiveTo review the available information on clinical practice guidelines for person-centred and current handover practices between emergency care practitioners (ECPs) and healthcare professionals in emergency departments (EDs). Collating existing clinical practice guidelines may improve handover practices.Eligibility criteriaClinical practice guidelines for person-centred handover practices between ECPs and healthcare professionals in EDs. ECPs transporting and handing patients over to healthcare professionals in EDs. Healthcare professionals including doctors and nurses working in EDs, who are involved in handovers with ECPs. Studies conducted in EDs, emergency rooms or emergency centres in any geographical area. No language or time restrictions were applied. The search included published and unpublished studies, opinion papers as well as primary sources, and evidence synthesis. All qualitative and quantitative research designs were included.Sources of evidenceThe literature on clinical practice guidelines for person-centred handover practices was reviewed. Three electronic databases were searched: MEDLINE (PubMed), CINAHL (EBSCO) and Scopus from inception to May 2023 with no time limits set for the inclusion of published literature in the review. Six guideline organisations were also searched.Charting methodsA data extraction tool was developed, pilot-tested and used to extract data from the included studies.Results19 studies met the inclusion criteria. Various mnemonics exist for handover practices. Where mnemonics are not used, participants have identified important information that should be included during handover practices. We did not find any clinical practice guidelines or information on person-centred handover practices in any of the reviewed articles.ConclusionsCurrently, there is no gold standard for person-centred handover practices, which has led to various practices being implemented. Currently, there is a paucity of literature on person-centred handover practices. Most articles expressed a need for standardised handover practices; however, not all aspects of handover practices can be standardised and should be kept patient and context-specific.Trial and protocol registrationThis scoping review protocol was registered on Figshare (10.6084/m9 /m9.figshare.21731528).

Project description:BackgroundIncreasing numbers of family carers are providing informal care in community settings. This creates a number of challenges because family carers are at risk of poor physical and psychological health outcomes, with consequences both for themselves and those for whom they provide care. General Practitioners (GPs), who play a central role in community-based care, are ideally positioned to identify, assess, and signpost carers to supports. However, there is a significant gap in the literature in respect of appropriate guidance and resources to support them in this role.MethodsA scoping review was undertaken to examine clinical guidelines and recommendations for GPs to support them in their role with family carers. This involved a multidisciplinary team, in line with Arksey & O'Malley's framework, and entailed searches of ten peer-reviewed databases and grey literature between September-November 2020.ResultsThe searches yielded a total of 4,651 English language papers, 35 of which met the criteria for inclusion after removing duplicates, screening titles and abstracts, and performing full-text readings. Ten papers focused on resources/guidelines for GPs, twenty were research papers, three were review papers, one was a framework of quality markers for carer support, and one was an editorial. Data synthesis indicated that nine (90%) of the guidelines included some elements relating to the identification, assessment, and/or signposting of carers. Key strategies for identifying carers suggest that a whole practice approach is optimal, incorporating a role for the GP, practice staff, and for the use of appropriate supporting documentation. Important knowledge gaps were highlighted in respect of appropriate clinical assessment and evidence-based signposting pathways.ConclusionOur review addresses a significant gap in the literature by providing an important synthesis of current available evidence on clinical guidelines for GPs in supporting family carers, including strategies for identification, options for assessment and potential referral/signposting routes. However, there is a need for greater transparency of the existing evidence base as well as much more research to evaluate the effectiveness and increase the routine utilisation, of clinical guidelines in primary care.

Project description:ObjectivesOrganisations that develop clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) encourage involvement of patients and the publics in their development, however, there are no standard methodologies for doing so. To examine how CPGs report patient and public involvement (PPI), we conducted a scoping review of the evidence addressing the following four questions: (1) who are the patients and publics involved in developing the CPG?; (2) from where and how are the patients and publics recruited?; (3) at what stage in the CPG development process are the patients and publics involved? and (4) how do the patients and publics contribute their views? We also extracted data on the use of PPI reporting checklists by the included studies.DesignWe used the methodology developed by Arksey and O'Malley and refined by the Joanna Briggs Institute. We searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO, websites of national guideline bodies from the UK, Canada, Australia and the USA, and conducted a forward citation search. No language, date or participant demographics restrictions were applied. Data were synthesised narratively.ResultsWe included 47 studies addressing 1 or more of the 4 questions. All included studies reported who the patient and publics involved (PPI members) were, and several studies reported PPI members from different groups. Patients were reported in 43/47 studies, advocates were reported in 22/47 studies, patients and advocates reported in 17/47 studies, and general public reported in 2/47 studies. Thirty-four studies reported from where the patients and publics were recruited, with patient groups being the most common (20/34). Stage of involvement was reported by 42/47 studies, most commonly at question identification (26/42) and draft review (18/42) stages. Forty-two studies reported how the patients contributed, most commonly via group meetings (18/42) or individual interviews. Ten studies cited or used a reporting checklist to report findings.ConclusionsOur scoping review has revealed knowledge gaps to inform future research in several ways: replication, terminology and inclusion. First, no standard approach to PPI in CPG development could be inferred from the research. Second, inconsistent terminology to describe patients and publics reduces clarity around which patients and publics have been involved in developing CPGs. Finally, the under-representation of research describing PPI in the development of screening, as opposed to treatment, CPGs warrants further attention.

Dataset Information

A scoping review of theories used to investigate clinician adherence to clinical practice guidelines.

Background

Aim

Method

Results

Conclusion

Publications

A scoping review of theories used to investigate clinician adherence to clinical practice guidelines.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets