Literature DB >> 10737446

Are nonspecific practice guidelines potentially harmful? A randomized comparison of the effect of nonspecific versus specific guidelines on physician decision making.

P G Shekelle1, R L Kravitz, J Beart, M Marger, M Wang, M Lee.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To test the ability of two different clinical practice guideline formats to influence physician ordering of electrodiagnostic tests in low back pain. DATA SOURCES/STUDY
DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial of the effect of practice guidelines on self-reported physician test ordering behavior in response to a series of 12 clinical vignettes. Data came from a national random sample of 900 U.S. neurologists, physical medicine physicians, and general internists. INTERVENTION: Two different versions of a practice guideline for the use of electrodiagnostic tests (EDT) were developed by the U.S. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research Low Back Problems Panel. The two guidelines were similar in content but varied in the specificity of their recommendations. DATA COLLECTION: The proportion of clinical vignettes for which EDTs were ordered for appropriate and inappropriate clinical indications in each of three physician groups were randomly assigned to receive vignettes alone, vignettes plus the nonspecific version of the guideline, or vignettes plus the specific version of the guideline. PRINCIPAL
FINDINGS: The response rate to the survey was 71 percent. The proportion of appropriate vignettes for which EDTs were ordered averaged 77 percent for the no guideline group, 71 percent for the nonspecific guideline group, and 79 percent for the specific guideline group (p = .002). The corresponding values for the number of EDTs ordered for inappropriate vignettes were 32 percent, 32 percent, and 26 percent, respectively (p = .08). Pairwise comparisons showed that physicians receiving the nonspecific guidelines ordered fewer EDTs for appropriate clinical vignettes than did physicians receiving no guidelines (p = .02). Furthermore, compared to physicians receiving nonspecific guidelines, physicians receiving specific guidelines ordered significantly more EDTs for appropriate vignettes (p = .0007) and significantly fewer EDTs for inappropriate vignettes (p = .04).
CONCLUSIONS: The clarity and clinical applicability of a guideline may be important attributes that contribute to the effects of practice guidelines.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10737446      PMCID: PMC1975662     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Serv Res        ISSN: 0017-9124            Impact factor:   3.402


  17 in total

Review 1.  Written case simulations: do they predict physicians' behavior?

Authors:  T V Jones; M S Gerrity; J Earp
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 2.  Practice guidelines, a new reality in medicine. II. Methods of developing guidelines.

Authors:  S H Woolf
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  1992-05

3.  Evaluating the use of the appropriateness method in the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research Clinical Practice Guideline Development process.

Authors:  P G Shekelle; D L Schriger
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  1996-10       Impact factor: 3.402

Review 4.  Developing clinically valid practice guidelines.

Authors:  J Grimshaw; M Eccles; I Russell
Journal:  J Eval Clin Pract       Date:  1995-09       Impact factor: 2.431

5.  Clinical decision making: from theory to practice. Practice policies--guidelines for methods.

Authors:  D M Eddy
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1990-04-04       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Do physicians do what they say? The inclination to test and its association with coronary angiography rates.

Authors:  D E Wennberg; J D Dickens; L Biener; F J Fowler; D N Soule; R B Keller
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1997-03       Impact factor: 5.128

7.  Medical practice guidelines: current activities and future directions.

Authors:  A M Audet; S Greenfield; M Field
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1990-11-01       Impact factor: 25.391

8.  Physician variation in diagnostic testing for low back pain. Who you see is what you get.

Authors:  D C Cherkin; R A Deyo; K Wheeler; M A Ciol
Journal:  Arthritis Rheum       Date:  1994-01

9.  Effects of the National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Program on physician practice.

Authors:  J Kosecoff; D E Kanouse; W H Rogers; L McCloskey; C M Winslow; R H Brook
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1987-11-20       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  Attributes of clinical guidelines that influence use of guidelines in general practice: observational study.

Authors:  R Grol; J Dalhuijsen; S Thomas; C Veld; G Rutten; H Mokkink
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-09-26
View more
  46 in total

1.  Does health systems thinking guide health services actions?

Authors:  J R Feussner; J G Demakis
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 3.402

2.  Characteristics of effective clinical guidelines for general practice.

Authors:  Jako S Burgers; Richard P T M Grol; Joost O M Zaat; Teun H Spies; Akke K van der Bij; Henk G A Mokkink
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 5.386

Review 3.  Clinical guidelines: developing guidelines.

Authors:  P G Shekelle; S H Woolf; M Eccles; J Grimshaw
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-02-27

4.  A model of ambiguity and vagueness in clinical practice guideline recommendations.

Authors:  Shlomi Codish; Richard N Shiffman
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2005

5.  The development of guideline implementation tools: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Anna R Gagliardi; Melissa C Brouwers; Onil K Bhattacharyya
Journal:  CMAJ Open       Date:  2015-01-13

6.  Primary care evidence in clinical guidelines: a mixed methods study of practitioners' views.

Authors:  Asmaa Abdelhamid; Amanda Howe; Tim Stokes; Nadeem Qureshi; Nick Steel
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 5.386

7.  Automating Guidelines for Clinical Decision Support: Knowledge Engineering and Implementation.

Authors:  Geoffrey J Tso; Samson W Tu; Connie Oshiro; Susana Martins; Michael Ashcraft; Kaeli W Yuen; Dan Wang; Amy Robinson; Paul A Heidenreich; Mary K Goldstein
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2017-02-10

Review 8.  Collaborative writing applications in healthcare: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes.

Authors:  Patrick M Archambault; Tom H van de Belt; Craig Kuziemsky; Ariane Plaisance; Audrey Dupuis; Carrie A McGinn; Rebecca Francois; Marie-Pierre Gagnon; Alexis F Turgeon; Tanya Horsley; William Witteman; Julien Poitras; Jean Lapointe; Kevin Brand; Jean Lachaine; France Légaré
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2017-05-10

9.  Defining and Rating the Effectiveness of Enabling Services Using a Multi-stakeholder Expert Panel Approach.

Authors:  Anne L Escaron; Rosy Chang Weir; Petra Stanton; Robin M Clarke
Journal:  J Health Care Poor Underserved       Date:  2015-05

10.  Improving the care for people with acute low-back pain by allied health professionals (the ALIGN trial): A cluster randomised trial protocol.

Authors:  Joanne E McKenzie; Denise A O'Connor; Matthew J Page; Duncan S Mortimer; Simon D French; Bruce F Walker; Jennifer L Keating; Jeremy M Grimshaw; Susan Michie; Jill J Francis; Sally E Green
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2010-11-10       Impact factor: 7.327

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.