OBJECTIVE: To assess Canadian family physicians' awareness of, attitudes toward, and use of the 1999 Canadian Consensus Conference on Dementia (CCCD) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs); to explore the barriers and enablers to implementing dementia CPGs in clinical practice; and to identify more effective strategies for future dementia guideline development and dissemination. DESIGN: Qualitative study using focus groups. SETTING: Academic family practice clinics in Calgary, Alta, Ottawa, Ont, and Toronto, Ont. PARTICIPANTS: Eighteen family physicians. METHODS: Using a semistructured interview guide, we conducted 4 qualitative focus groups of 4 to 6 family physicians whose practices we had audited in a previous study. Transcripts were coded using an inductive data analytic strategy, and categories and themes were identified and described using the principles of thematic analysis. MAIN FINDINGS: Four major themes emerged from the focus group discussions. Family physicians 1) were minimally aware of the existence and the detailed contents of the CCCD guidelines; 2) had strong views about the purposes of guidelines in general; 3) expressed strong concerns about the role of the pharmaceutical industry in the development of such guidelines; and 4) had many ideas to improve future dementia guidelines and CPGs in general. CONCLUSION: Family physicians were minimally aware of the 1999 CCCD CPGs. They acknowledged, however, the potential of future CPGs to assist them in patient care and offered many strategies to improve the development and dissemination of future dementia guidelines. Future guidelines should more accurately reflect the day-to-day practice experiences and challenges of family physicians, and guideline developers should also be cognizant of family physicians' perceptions that pharmaceutical companies' funding of CPGs undermines the objectivity and credibility of those guidelines.
OBJECTIVE: To assess Canadian family physicians' awareness of, attitudes toward, and use of the 1999 Canadian Consensus Conference on Dementia (CCCD) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs); to explore the barriers and enablers to implementing dementia CPGs in clinical practice; and to identify more effective strategies for future dementia guideline development and dissemination. DESIGN: Qualitative study using focus groups. SETTING: Academic family practice clinics in Calgary, Alta, Ottawa, Ont, and Toronto, Ont. PARTICIPANTS: Eighteen family physicians. METHODS: Using a semistructured interview guide, we conducted 4 qualitative focus groups of 4 to 6 family physicians whose practices we had audited in a previous study. Transcripts were coded using an inductive data analytic strategy, and categories and themes were identified and described using the principles of thematic analysis. MAIN FINDINGS: Four major themes emerged from the focus group discussions. Family physicians 1) were minimally aware of the existence and the detailed contents of the CCCD guidelines; 2) had strong views about the purposes of guidelines in general; 3) expressed strong concerns about the role of the pharmaceutical industry in the development of such guidelines; and 4) had many ideas to improve future dementia guidelines and CPGs in general. CONCLUSION: Family physicians were minimally aware of the 1999 CCCD CPGs. They acknowledged, however, the potential of future CPGs to assist them in patient care and offered many strategies to improve the development and dissemination of future dementia guidelines. Future guidelines should more accurately reflect the day-to-day practice experiences and challenges of family physicians, and guideline developers should also be cognizant of family physicians' perceptions that pharmaceutical companies' funding of CPGs undermines the objectivity and credibility of those guidelines.
Authors: Nicholas J G Pimlott; Karen Siegel; Malini Persaud; Susan Slaughter; Carole Cohen; Gary Hollingworth; Sandy Cummings; Neil Drummond; William Dalziel; James Sylvius; Dorothy Pringle; Tex Eliasziw Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: Gustavo Saposnik; Moira K Kapral; Robert Cote; Paula A Rochon; Julie Wang; Stavroula Raptis; Muhammad Mamdani; Sandra E Black Journal: J Neurol Date: 2012-04-25 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Paul R Borghesani; Shaune M DeMers; Vivek Manchanda; Sumit Pruthi; David H Lewis; Soo Borson Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2010-07-28 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Soo Borson; James M Scanlan; Tatiana Sadak; Mary Lessig; Peter Vitaliano Journal: Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2013-11-12 Impact factor: 4.105
Authors: Simon Reuter; Dennis Lindgaard; Christian Laursen; Barbara Malene Fischer; Paul Frost Clementsen; Uffe Bodtger Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: Nicholas J G Pimlott; Malini Persaud; Neil Drummond; Carole A Cohen; James L Silvius; Karen Seigel; Gary R Hollingworth; William B Dalziel Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: G Michael Allan; Kris Aubrey-Bassler; Michel Cauchon; Noah M Ivers; Alan Katz; Jessica Kirkwood; Peter James Kuling; Eric J Mang; Simon Moore; Artem Safarov; Catherine Scrimshaw; Elizabeth Shaw; Penelope Stalker; Robert Woollard Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2021-07 Impact factor: 3.275