Marjolein Lugtenberg1, Jako S Burgers, Dolly Han, Gert P Westert. 1. Scientific Center for Care and Welfare (Tranzo), Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands; Scientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare (IQ healthcare), Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Abstract
RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Interventions aimed at improving guideline adherence should take into account the specific features of the target users; however, it is unclear how general practitioners (GPs) evaluate the different types of interventions. The aim of this paper was to identify GPs' preferences for interventions to improve guideline adherence in practice and whether these differ across key guideline recommendations. METHOD: An electronic survey was conducted among 703 GPs working in the south-western part of the Netherlands. Each survey focused on two of four guidelines: cerebrovascular accident, eye inflammation, thyroid disorders and urinary tract infection. GPs were asked to rate potential interventions in terms of their usefulness in improving guideline adherence in general and for specific key guideline recommendations. RESULTS: 264 GPs (38%) completed the questionnaire. In general, GPs preferred interactive small group meetings (84% rated this as much or very much encouraging), audit and feedback (53%), organizational interventions (50%) and the use of local opinion leaders (50%) as methods for improving guideline adherence. Financial interventions (24%), distribution of educational materials (22%) and big group educational meetings (21%) were of least interest. Some interventions were preferred by GPs irrespective of the specific key recommendations (e.g. audit and feedback), while ratings for other interventions differed across key recommendations (reminders/computer support). CONCLUSIONS: To implement guidelines, interventions need to be identified that are acceptable and appealing to the target group. GPs seem to have general and recommendation-specific preferences regarding interventions, these should be taken into account when developing plans for guideline implementation to encourage the uptake of guidelines in practice.
RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Interventions aimed at improving guideline adherence should take into account the specific features of the target users; however, it is unclear how general practitioners (GPs) evaluate the different types of interventions. The aim of this paper was to identify GPs' preferences for interventions to improve guideline adherence in practice and whether these differ across key guideline recommendations. METHOD: An electronic survey was conducted among 703 GPs working in the south-western part of the Netherlands. Each survey focused on two of four guidelines: cerebrovascular accident, eye inflammation, thyroid disorders and urinary tract infection. GPs were asked to rate potential interventions in terms of their usefulness in improving guideline adherence in general and for specific key guideline recommendations. RESULTS: 264 GPs (38%) completed the questionnaire. In general, GPs preferred interactive small group meetings (84% rated this as much or very much encouraging), audit and feedback (53%), organizational interventions (50%) and the use of local opinion leaders (50%) as methods for improving guideline adherence. Financial interventions (24%), distribution of educational materials (22%) and big group educational meetings (21%) were of least interest. Some interventions were preferred by GPs irrespective of the specific key recommendations (e.g. audit and feedback), while ratings for other interventions differed across key recommendations (reminders/computer support). CONCLUSIONS: To implement guidelines, interventions need to be identified that are acceptable and appealing to the target group. GPs seem to have general and recommendation-specific preferences regarding interventions, these should be taken into account when developing plans for guideline implementation to encourage the uptake of guidelines in practice.
Authors: Margot C W Joosen; Karlijn M van Beurden; Berend Terluin; Jaap van Weeghel; Evelien P M Brouwers; Jac J L van der Klink Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2015-04-24 Impact factor: 2.463
Authors: Rachel Gold; Arwen Bunce; Stuart Cowburn; James V Davis; Celine Hollombe; Christine A Nelson; Jon Puro; John Muench; Christian Hill; Victoria Jaworski; MaryBeth Mercer; Colleen Howard; Nancy Perrin; Jennifer DeVoe Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2017-04-05 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Marjolein Lugtenberg; Karlijn M van Beurden; Evelien P M Brouwers; Berend Terluin; Jaap van Weeghel; Jac J L van der Klink; Margot C W Joosen Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2016-07-16 Impact factor: 2.655