Literature DB >> 12787183

The state of the science and art of practice guidelines development, dissemination and evaluation in Canada.

Ian D Graham1, Susan Beardall, Anne O Carter, Jacqueline Tetroe, Barbara Davies.   

Abstract

The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) maintains a database of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) developed or endorsed by Canadian organizations. The study purpose was to describe how these guidelines were developed, disseminated and evaluated. A survey was mailed to the developer of each CPG registered in the CMA Infobase between June 1996 and December 1999. Data were received for 730 unique guidelines (response rate of 70%) developed by 75 organizations. Of these, 72% were developed by committees that had a formal process for selecting their members. The scientific literature was reviewed for all of the guidelines, a computerized search undertaken for 88% and the search strategy included 34% of CPG documents. An attempt was made to grade the quality of the evidence underpinning 54% of the guidelines. For most guidelines, consensus about values or judgements was reached by expert opinion through open discussion (78% of guidelines). The most common strategies used to disseminate the guidelines were direct mailing of guidelines to members of the developing organization (80% of all guidelines), publishing guidelines in newsletters/journals (76%), direct mailing to others (73%), electronic dissemination (62%), educational or continuing medical education activities (50%), and providing information about guidelines to patients/consumers (47%). Overall, 5% of the guidelines have been evaluated to determine their impact on health outcomes. During the 5-year study period (1994-99), the more recent guidelines were more likely to use multidisciplinary development panels, report the literature search strategies and grade the quality of the evidence. The CPG development process in Canada is becoming more rigorous and reproducible, but there is still considerable room for improvement. In addition to encouraging Canadian guideline developers to use more rigorous and transparent methods, considerably more attention must be focused on using and identifying effective and cost-effective strategies to promote and facilitate the uptake of guidelines by practitioners and to evaluate the impact of guidelines on patient outcomes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12787183     DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2753.2003.00385.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Eval Clin Pract        ISSN: 1356-1294            Impact factor:   2.431


  12 in total

1.  Cardiac arrest survival did not increase in the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium after implementation of the 2005 AHA CPR and ECC guidelines.

Authors:  Blair L Bigham; Kent Koprowicz; Tom Rea; Paul Dorian; Tom P Aufderheide; Daniel P Davis; Judy Powell; Laurie J Morrison
Journal:  Resuscitation       Date:  2011-03-31       Impact factor: 5.262

Review 2.  AGREEing on Canadian cardiovascular clinical practice guidelines.

Authors:  James A Stone; Leslie Austford; John H Parker; Norm Gledhill; Guy Tremblay; Heather M Arthur
Journal:  Can J Cardiol       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 5.223

3.  The Quality of Six Clinical Practice Guidelines in Health and Social Sciences: Are We on the Right Track?

Authors:  Catherine Hébert; Kia Watkins-Martin; Gabrielle Ciquier; Michelle Azzi; Martin Drapeau
Journal:  Adm Policy Ment Health       Date:  2021-04-18

4.  A comprehensive model of factors affecting adoption of clinical practice guidelines in Korea.

Authors:  Yang-Kyun Kim; Sun-Hee Lee; Ju-Hyun Seo; Ju-Hye Kim; Seong-Deok Kim; Gook-Ki Kim
Journal:  J Korean Med Sci       Date:  2010-10-26       Impact factor: 2.153

5.  Implementing practice guidelines: a workshop on guidelines dissemination and implementation with a focus on asthma and COPD.

Authors:  Louis-Philippe Boulet; Allan Becker; Dennis Bowie; Paul Hernandez; Andrew McIvor; Michel Rouleau; Jean Bourbeau; Ian D Graham; Jo Logan; France Légaré; Thomas F Ward; Robert L Cowie; Denis Drouin; Stewart B Harris; Robyn Tamblyn; Pierre Ernst; Wan C Tan; Martyn R Partridge; Philippe Godard; Carla T Herrerias; John W Wilson; Liz Stirling; Emily-Brynn Rozitis; Nancy Garvey; Diane Lougheed; Manon Labrecque; Renata Rea; Martin C Holroyde; Danielle Fagnan; Eileen Dorval; Lisa Pogany; Alan Kaplan; Lisa Cicutto; Mary L Allen; Serge Moraca; J Mark FitzGerald; Francine Borduas
Journal:  Can Respir J       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 2.409

6.  Twelve years of clinical practice guideline development, dissemination and evaluation in Canada (1994 to 2005).

Authors:  Jennifer Kryworuchko; Dawn Stacey; Nan Bai; Ian D Graham
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2009-08-05       Impact factor: 7.327

7.  Reconsidering patient participation in guideline development.

Authors:  Hester M van de Bovenkamp; Margo J Trappenburg
Journal:  Health Care Anal       Date:  2008-12-20

8.  Evidence-informed health policy 2 - survey of organizations that support the use of research evidence.

Authors:  John N Lavis; Elizabeth J Paulsen; Andrew D Oxman; Ray Moynihan
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2008-12-17       Impact factor: 7.327

9.  Evidence-informed health policy 3 - interviews with the directors of organizations that support the use of research evidence.

Authors:  John N Lavis; Andrew D Oxman; Ray Moynihan; Elizabeth J Paulsen
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2008-12-17       Impact factor: 7.327

10.  Do physician outcome judgments and judgment biases contribute to inappropriate use of treatments? Study protocol.

Authors:  Jamie C Brehaut; Roy Poses; Kaveh G Shojania; Alison Lott; Malcolm Man-Son-Hing; Elise Bassin; Jeremy Grimshaw
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2007-06-07       Impact factor: 7.327

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.