[What is most important is what comes across : Urological guidelines from the target group's point of view].

BACKGROUND: Guidelines are developed to improve the quality of patient care. The effect of German urologic guidelines has not been evaluated so far. Therefore, we aimed to systematically investigate the acceptance, use, and quality of the published guidelines from a user's perspective.
METHODS: A link to an online questionnaire concerning use and barriers to the application of guidelines was distributed via e-mail by the German Society of Urology (DGU). German urologists' opinions on differences in national guideline quality were evaluated regarding prostate cancer (PCA), bladder cancer, germ cell tumors (GCT), renal cell carcinomas, and erectile dysfunction.
RESULTS: Four hundred sixty-seven German urologists participated. More than 90% of the participants considered guidelines to be helpful. The Internet as the main tool for guideline distribution was favored by 28.4%, followed by publication in Urologe A. The main barrier to guideline usage was attributed to the lack of up-to date clinical data. Guidelines for GCT scored best in all quality categories and reached the highest level of use (65.8%), and 40.5% of participating urologists considered the additional establishment of comprehensive care centers for GCT as more effective for quality improvement than guideline development alone. For the other urologic tumors, especially PCA, guideline development was favored as a tool for quality improvement.
CONCLUSION: More than 90% of participating urologists accept clinical guidelines as useful instruments in clinical practice and for therapeutic decisions. Our results should be integrated into guideline dissemination and implementation strategies in order to achieve a higher degree of treatment conformation to guidelines.