Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background The evidence-based guideline entitled guideline evidence-based health information emerged from the German Network for Evidence-based Medicine (DNEbM) and was published in February 2017. The guideline addresses providers of health information and its goal is to improve the quality of health information. In addition, we explored the competences of providers of health information and developed a training programme. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of a training programme addressing providers of health information to support the application of the guideline evidence-based health information . We expected the intervention to improve the quality of health information in comparison to the provision of the guideline on its own. Methods/design The trial uses a superiority randomised control group design with 10 months’ follow-up. Twenty-six providers of health information (groups with up to ten members) will be enrolled to compare the intervention (guideline and training programme) with usual care (a publicly available guideline). The 5-day training programme comprises an evidence-based medicine training module and a module to prepare the application of the guideline. The primary outcome parameter is the quality of the health information. Quality is operationalised as the extent of adherence to the guideline’s recommendations. Each provider will prepare a single health information item informing a health-related decision on a topic freely chosen before randomisation. The quality of this information will be rated using the Mapping Health Information Quality (MAPPinfo) Checklist. An accompanying process evaluation will then be conducted. Discussion The study results should show whether the efficacy of the intervention justifies implementation of the training programme to enhance health information developers’ competences in evidence-based medicine and to ensure high-quality evidence-based health information (EBHI) in the long term. Trial registration ISRCTN registry, ID: ISRCTN96941060 . Registered on 7 March 2019.

Background As a source of readily available evidence, rigorously synthesized and interpreted by expert clinicians and methodologists, clinical guidelines are part of an evidence-based practice toolkit, which, transformed into practice recommendations, have the potential to improve both the process of care and patient outcomes. In Brazil, the process of development and updating of the clinical guidelines for the Brazilian Unified Health System (Sistema Único de Saúde, SUS) is already well systematized by the Ministry of Health. However, the implementation process of those guidelines has not yet been discussed and well structured. Therefore, the first step of this project and the primary objective of this study was to summarize the evidence on the effectiveness of strategies used to promote clinical practice guideline implementation and dissemination. Methods This overview used systematic review methodology to locate and evaluate published systematic reviews regarding strategies for clinical practice guideline implementation and adhered to the PRISMA guidelines for systematic review (PRISMA). Results This overview identified 36 systematic reviews regarding 30 strategies targeting healthcare organizations, healthcare providers and patients to promote guideline implementation. The most reported interventions were educational materials, educational meetings, reminders, academic detailing and audit and feedback. Care pathways—single intervention, educational meeting—single intervention, organizational culture, and audit and feedback—both strategies implemented in combination with others—were strategies categorized as generally effective from the systematic reviews. In the meta-analyses, when used alone, organizational culture, educational intervention and reminders proved to be effective in promoting physicians' adherence to the guidelines. When used in conjunction with other strategies, organizational culture also proved to be effective. For patient-related outcomes, education intervention showed effective results for disease target results at a short and long term. Conclusion This overview provides a broad summary of the best evidence on guideline implementation. Even if the included literature highlights the various limitations related to the lack of standardization, the methodological quality of the studies, and especially the lack of conclusion about the superiority of one strategy over another, the summary of the results provided by this study provides information on strategies that have been most widely studied in the last few years and their effectiveness in the context in which they were applied. Therefore, this panorama can support strategy decision-making adequate for SUS and other health systems, seeking to positively impact on the appropriate use of guidelines, healthcare outcomes and the sustainability of the SUS.

Evidence-based clinical guidelines have the potential to improve health care and health outcomes. Living guidelines methods provide an approach to ensuring guidelines are always up-to-date, maximizing this potential. However, to date, most work on living guidelines has been conducted in high income countries. The objective of this study is to explore the barriers and facilitators to the development, adaptation, and use of living guidelines among evidence-based guideline developers in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We used a descriptive qualitative study design. We employed purposive and snowball sampling techniques to recruit guideline developers from LMICs and World Health Organization offices to participate in online, semistructured interviews. Data were analysed using a thematic approach with NVivo 20 software. Ethics approval was granted by Monash University. We interviewed 18 participants from LMICs (Colombia, India, Iran, Indonesia, Argentina, and Malaysia) and WHO offices (including headquarters, regional offices, and country offices). Two main themes emerged, along with six associated subthemes. The main themes were as follows: (1) People in LMICs want living guidelines and (2) Resource limitations and their implications for living guidelines in LMICs. Our research identified that guideline developers in LMICs have a strong desire to both develop and use living guidelines, but are currently limited by important barriers. Initiatives to support development, adaptation, and use of living guidelines in LMICs may help overcome barriers and meet the need for living guidelines in LMICs. It is also essential to design strategies that overcome identified barriers to developing, adapting, and implementing living guidelines, such as a lack of resources, delays in updates, and limited accessibility. This study looked at how living (continuously updated) approaches can be used to develop, adapt, and use clinical guidelines in settings with limited resources, and explored the pros and cons of each. The findings revealed a strong need to develop and use living guidelines in low-resource settings despite challenges, such as resource scarcity, delays in updating, and limited access to these guidelines. Overall, the findings revealed that living guidelines were worthwhile in LMICs despite all of the related challenges. •Living guidelines methods provide an approach to ensuring that guidelines are always up-to-date.•Most work on living guidelines has been conducted in high income countries.•We explored barriers and facilitators to developing, adapting & using living guidelines in in LMICs.•Guideline developers in LMICs want to develop and use living guidelines but there are barriers.•Initiatives to overcome these barriers are need to support the need for living guidelines in LMICs.

Research indicates that clinical guidelines are often not applied. The success of their implementation depends on the consideration of a variety of barriers and the use of adequate strategies to overcome them. Therefore, this scoping review aims to describe and categorize the most important barriers to guideline implementation. Furthermore, it provides an overview of different kinds of suitable strategies that are tailored to overcome these barriers. The search algorithm led to the identification of 1659 articles in PubMed. Overall, 69 articles were included in the data synthesis. The content of these articles was analysed by using a qualitative synthesis approach, to extract the most important information on barriers and strategies. The barriers to guideline implementation can be differentiated into personal factors, guideline-related factors, and external factors. The scoping review revealed the following aspects as central elements of successful strategies for guideline implementation: dissemination, education and training, social interaction, decision support systems and standing orders. Available evidence indicates that a structured implementation can improve adherence to guidelines. Therefore, the barriers to guideline implementation and adherence need to be analysed in advance so that strategies that are tailored to the specific setting and target groups can be developed.

Background Clinical practice guidelines are crucial for enhancing healthcare quality and patient outcomes. Yet, their implementation remains inconsistent across various professions and disciplines. Previous findings on the implementation of the German guideline for schizophrenia (2019) revealed low adherence rates among healthcare professionals. Barriers to guideline adherence are multifaceted, influenced by individual, contextual, and guideline-related factors. This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of a digital guideline version compared to print/PDF formats in enhancing guideline adherence. Methods A multicenter, cluster-randomized controlled trial was conducted in South Bavaria, Germany, involving psychologists and physicians. Participants were divided into two groups: implementation of the guideline using a digital online version via the MAGICapp platform and the other using the traditional print/PDF version. The study included a baseline assessment and a post-intervention assessment following a 6-month intervention phase. The primary outcome was guideline knowledge, which was assessed using a guideline knowledge questionnaire. Results The study included 217 participants at baseline and 120 at post-intervention. Both groups showed significant improvements in guideline knowledge; however, no notable difference was found between both study groups regarding guideline knowledge at either time points. At baseline, 43.6% in the control group (CG) and 52.5% of the interventional group (IG) met the criterion. There was no significant difference in the primary outcome between the two groups at either time point (T0: Chi 2 (1)  = 1.65, p  = 0.199, T1: Chi 2 (1)  = 0.34, p  = 0.561). At post-intervention, both groups improved, with 58.2% in the CG and 63.5% in the IG meeting this criterion. Conclusions While the study did not include a control group without any implementation strategy, the overall improvement in guideline knowledge following an implementation strategy, independent of the format, was confirmed. The digital guideline version, while not superior in enhancing knowledge, showed potential benefits in shared decision-making skills. However, familiarity with traditional formats and various barriers to digital application may have influenced these results. The study highlights the importance of tailored implementation strategies, especially for younger healthcare providers. Trial registration https://drks.de/search/de/trial/DRKS00028895

Purpose of Review Since the publication of the 2019 American College of Rheumatology/Spondylitis Association of America/Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network (ACR/SAA/SPARTAN) treatment recommendations for ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), new evidence has emerged that necessitates a revision of the ACR/SAA/SPARTAN clinical practice guideline (CPG). Recent Findings An online survey was conducted among SPARTAN members prior to the 2024 Annual Meeting, with 81 members participating. A majority (62%) expressed a preference for treating axSpA as a single entity in the updated CPG, eliminating the distinction between AS and nonradiographic axSpA. Updating the recommendations on pharmacotherapy was considered the top priority, followed by revising recommendations on disease activity monitoring and biosimilar use. Over half of the respondents (58%) rated the 2019 CPG as no more than moderately user-friendly. Key areas for improvement include outdated content, lack of quick reference materials, complex flow charts, and inadequate visual aids. Summary The survey results indicate strong support among SPARTAN members for treating axSpA as a single entity in the forthcoming update of the ACR/SAA/SPARTAN CPG. Additionally, there is demand for a more user-friendly guideline document.

This study aims to investigate the barriers and facilitators to guideline adherence for the print format of the German schizophrenia guideline as well as for the concept of a digital living guideline for the first time. For this purpose, the schizophrenia guideline was transferred to a digital guideline format within the web-based tool MAGICapp. An online survey was performed under participation of mental healthcare professionals (medical doctors, psychologists/psychotherapists, psychosocial therapists, caregivers) in 17 hospitals for psychiatry in Southern Germany and a professional association for German neurologists and psychiatrists. 524 participants opened the survey, 439 completed the demographic questions and commenced the content-related survey and 309 provided complete data sets. Results indicate a higher occurrence of knowledge-related barriers for the living guideline. The print version is associated with more attitude-related and external barriers. Older professionals reported more attitude-related barriers to a living guideline compared to younger professionals. Differences between professions regarding barriers were found for both formats. Various barriers exist for both guideline formats and a need for facilitators was expressed across professions. Many of the mentioned obstacles and facilitators can be more easily addressed with living guidelines. However, also living guidelines face barriers. Thus, the introduction of these new formats alone cannot lead to sustainable behavior change regarding guideline adherence. Yet, living guidelines seem to be a cornerstone to improved and tailored guideline implementation as they facilitate to keep recommendations up to date and to address the need of individual professional groups.

Background In cancer care, the use of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) has been shown to improve the quality and effectiveness of medical services. To facilitate physicians’ adherence to these guidelines, Taiwan established the position of oncology case manager (OCM) in 2010, one of whose responsibilities is to monitor physicians’ compliance. However, there have been few explorations of their experiences and the barriers they face in facilitating guideline implementation. Objective The aim of this study was to explore how OCMs carry out their roles in facilitating the implementation of CPGs in Taiwan and the challenges they encounter in this process. Methods In this study, a qualitative interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) approach focusing on interpreting phenomena was adopted. The subjects were eight OCMs from the same hospital in Taiwan. Data collection primarily involved conducting interviews, supplemented by document analysis. Results The analysis revealed the following challenges for OCMs in the process of facilitating guideline implementation: (1) Local production: Self-directed exploration leads to significant pressure. (2) Operational modes: Difficulties arise in the “low-ranking overseeing high-ranking” approach. (3) Accountability mechanisms: OCMs are saddled with the chore of managing evaluation. Conclusion/practical implications Guidelines are vital tools to ensure the quality of cancer care. However, based on the experiences of OCMs, shortcomings in institutional design, hierarchical organizational culture, misconceptions about the role of OCMs, and a lack of support from management have been identified as key obstacles in the implementation process. Suggestions of ways to address these challenges and promote successful guideline implementation are proposed.

Background Targeted temperature management (TTM) is often used in neurocritical care to minimize secondary neurologic injury and improve outcomes. TTM encompasses therapeutic hypothermia, controlled normothermia, and treatment of fever. TTM is best supported by evidence from neonatal hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, although it has also been explored in ischemic stroke, traumatic brain injury, and intracranial hemorrhage patients. Critical care clinicians using TTM must select appropriate cooling techniques, provide a reasonable rate of cooling, manage shivering, and ensure adequate patient monitoring among other challenges. Methods The Neurocritical Care Society recruited experts in neurocritical care, nursing, and pharmacotherapy to form a writing Committee in 2015. The group generated a set of 16 clinical questions relevant to TTM using the PICO format. With the assistance of a research librarian, the Committee undertook a comprehensive literature search with no back date through November 2016 with additional references up to March 2017. Results The Committee utilized GRADE methodology to adjudicate the quality of evidence as high, moderate, low, or very low based on their confidence that the estimate of effect approximated the true effect. They generated recommendations regarding the implementation of TTM based on this systematic review only after considering the quality of evidence, relative risks and benefits, patient values and preferences, and resource allocation. Conclusion This guideline is intended for neurocritical care clinicians who have chosen to use TTM in patient care; it is not meant to provide guidance regarding the clinical indications for TTM itself. While there are areas of TTM practice where clear evidence guides strong recommendations, many of the recommendations are conditional, and must be contextualized to individual patient and system needs.

Background Successful guideline implementation depends both on factors extrinsic to guidelines and their intrinsic features. In the Guideline Implementability for Decision Excellence Model (GUIDE-M), “communicating” content (language and format) is one of three core determinants of intrinsic implementability, but is seldom addressed. Our aims were to develop a tool that could be used by guideline developers to optimize language and format during development; identify gaps in this type of guidance in existing resources; and evaluate the perceived need for and usefulness of such a tool among guideline developers. Methods Our mixed-methods design consisted of (1) content development (selection and organization of evidence-based constructs from the GUIDE-M into a prototype Guideline Language and Format Instrument (GLAFI), followed by face validation with guideline developers); (2) document analysis (duplicate) of seven existing guideline tools to measure coverage of GLAFI items and identify new items; and (3) an international survey of guideline developers (corresponding authors of recent Canadian Medical Association or Guidelines International Network database guidelines) to measure perceived importance of language and format, quality of existing resources, and usefulness of a language and format tool. Results GLAFI items were organized into 4 language and 4 format subdomains. In face validation with guideline developers (17 clinicians, 1 methodologist), all agreed that the tool would improve guideline implementability and 93% indicated a desire for regular use. In the existing guideline tool document analysis, only 14/44 (31.8%) GLAFI items were operationalized in at least one tool. We received survey responses from 148/674 (22.0%) contacted guideline authors representing 45 organizations (9 countries). Language was rated as “extremely important” or “important” in determining uptake by 94% of respondents, and format by 84%. Correspondingly, 72% and 70% indicated that their organization would likely use such a tool. Conclusions Optimal language and format are fundamental to guideline implementability but often overlooked. The GLAFI tool operationalizes evidence-based constructs, most of which are absent in existing guideline tools. Guideline developers perceive these concepts to be important and express a willingness to use such a tool. The GLAFI should be further tested and refined with guideline developers and its impact on end-users measured.