| Literature DB >> 29234379 |
Hui Li1,2,3, Yangyang Wang1,2,3, Yaolong Chen4, Xiaoyun Wang3,5,6, Chuanjian Lu1,2,3, Jingwen Deng1,2,3.
Abstract
Clinical practice guidelines play an important role in reducing the variations in clinical practices and improving the quality of care. To assess the real effect, measuring its implementation situation is needed. The implementation situation can be reflected by testing the consistency between the actual clinical practice and the guideline. We constructed an instrument to measure the implementation situation of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) guideline through consistency testing. The main objectives of our study were to validate the instrument and evaluate the implementation situation of menopause syndrome guideline of TCM, using the data from the consistency test of comparing the medical records with the guideline. A total of 621 cases were included for data analysis. Cronbach's Alpha coefficient is 0.73. The model fit of 7 items in four dimensions was good (SRMR = 0.04; GFI = 0.97; NFI = 0.97; TLI = 0.96; CFI = 0.98; AGFI = 0.90). This instrument is of good reliability and validity. It can help the guideline developers to measure the implementation situation, find the reasons affecting the implementation, and revise the guideline. The method of using consistency test to measure the implementation situation may provide a sample for evaluating the guideline implementation in other fields.Entities:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29234379 PMCID: PMC5682072 DOI: 10.1155/2017/2861924
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Consistency test model of TCM guideline.
| Scale | Dimensions | Items |
|---|---|---|
| Consistency of guideline | Diagnosis | TCM diagnosis |
| MM diagnosis | ||
| Syndrome differentiation and treatment | Syndrome differentiation | |
| Treatment strategy | ||
| Recipe medicinal | ||
| Other therapeutic method | Other therapeutic method | |
| Prevention | Prevention |
TCM: Traditional Chinese Medicine; MM: modern medicine.
Numbers of medical records from different hospitals in sample 1 and sample 2.
| Different hospitals | Numbers of gynecologists | Sample 1 | Sample 2 |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Guangdong Provincial Hospital of TCM | 16 | 66 | 81 | 0.973 | 0.914 |
| Hangzhou Hospital of TCM | 8 | 57 | 60 | ||
| Nanjing Hospital of TCM | 14 | 59 | 62 | ||
| Yueyang Hospital of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine | 8 | 60 | 60 | ||
| Zhangzhou Hospital of TCM | 12 | 58 | 58 | ||
| Total | 58 | 300 | 321 |
TCM: Traditional Chinese Medicine.
Figure 1Graphical presentation of the CFA. VA: diagnosis, VA1: TCM diagnosis, and VA2: MM diagnosis; VB: syndrome differentiation and treatment, VB1: syndrome differentiation, VB2: treatment strategy, and VB3: recipe medicinal; VC = VC1: other therapeutic method; VD = VD1: prevention.
Changes of consistency scores between sample 1 and sample 2.
| Dimensions | Items | Median | Sample 1 | Median | Sample 2 |
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frequency of each consistency degree | Frequency of each consistency degree | |||||||||||
| No consistency | Weak | Medium | Strong | No consistency | Weak | Medium | Strong | |||||
| VA | VA1 | 4.00 | 1 | 13 | 129 | 157 | 4.00 | 0 | 1 | 116 | 204 | 0.001 |
| VA2 | 5.00 | 0 | 15 | 117 | 168 | 4.00 | 0 | 1 | 111 | 209 | 0.007 | |
| VB | VB1 | 3.00 | 33 | 37 | 97 | 133 | 3.00 | 40 | 22 | 100 | 159 | 0.207 |
| VB2 | 3.00 | 27 | 44 | 110 | 119 | 3.00 | 38 | 23 | 109 | 151 | 0.09 | |
| VB3 | 3.00 | 26 | 90 | 116 | 68 | 3.00 | 41 | 46 | 131 | 103 | 0.006 | |
| VC | VC1 | 3.00 | 40 | 95 | 113 | 52 | 2.00 | 52 | 119 | 87 | 63 | 0.051 |
| VD | VC2 | 2.00 | 124 | 28 | 110 | 38 | 3.00 | 63 | 33 | 115 | 110 | <0.0001 |
VA: diagnosis, VA1: TCM diagnosis, and VA2: MM diagnosis; VB: syndrome differentiation and treatment, VB1: syndrome differentiation, VB2: treatment strategy, and VB3: recipe medicinal; VC = VC1: other therapeutic method; VD = VD1: prevention.
Distribution of consistency scores in sample 1#.
| Dimensions | Items | Median | Frequency of each consistency degree |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No consistency | Weak | Medium | Strong | ||||||||||
| VA | VA1 | 4.00 | 1 | 13 | 129 | 157 | — | ||||||
| VA2 | 4.00 | 0 | 15 | 117 | 168 | 0.602 | — | ||||||
| VB | VB1 | 3.00 | 33 | 37 | 97 | 133 |
|
| — | ||||
| VB2 | 3.00 | 27 | 44 | 110 | 119 |
|
| 0.520 | — | ||||
| VB3 | 3.00 | 26 | 90 | 116 | 68 |
|
|
|
| — | |||
| VC | VC1 | 3.00 | 40 | 95 | 113 | 52 |
|
|
|
| 0.003 | — | |
| VD | VD1 | 2.00 | 124 | 28 | 110 | 38 |
|
|
|
|
| 0.006 | — |
VA: diagnosis, VA1: TCM diagnosis, and VA2: MM diagnosis; VB: syndrome differentiation and treatment, VB1: syndrome differentiation, VB2: treatment strategy, and VB3: recipe medicinal; VC = VC1: other therapeutic method; VD = VD1: prevention; Notes. #Adjusted P value for multiple comparisons test was 0.002. P < 0.002 was considered to be statistically significant; aP values of different items compared with “VA1”; bP values of different items compared with “VA2”; cP values of different items compared with “VB1”; dP values of different items compared with “VB2”; eP values of different items compared with “VB3”; fP values of different items compared with “VC1”; gP values of different items compared with “VD1”; P < 0.001.
Distribution of consistency scores in sample 2#.
| Dimensions | Items | Median | Frequency of each consistency degree |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No consistency | Weak | Medium | Strong | ||||||||||
| VA | VA1 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 116 | — | ||||||
| VA2 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 111 | 0.787 | — | ||||||
| VB | VB1 | 3 | 3 | 40 | 22 | 100 |
|
| — | ||||
| VB2 | 3 | 3 | 38 | 23 | 109 |
|
| 0.712 | — | ||||
| VB3 | 3 | 3 | 41 | 46 | 131 |
|
|
|
| — | |||
| VC | VC1 | 3 | 2 | 52 | 119 | 87 |
|
|
|
|
| — | |
| VD | VD1 | 2 | 3 | 63 | 33 | 115 |
|
|
|
| 0.317 |
| — |
VA: diagnosis, VA1: TCM diagnosis, and VA2: MM diagnosis; VB: syndrome differentiation and treatment, VB1: syndrome differentiation, VB2: treatment strategy, and VB3: recipe medicinal; VC = VC1: other therapeutic method; VD = VD1: prevention; Notes. #Adjusted P value for multiple comparisons test was 0.002. P < 0.002 was considered to be statistically significant; aP values of different items compared with “VA1”; bP values of different items compared with “VA2”; cP values of different items compared with “VB1”; dP values of different items compared with “VB2”; eP values of different items compared with “VB3”; fP values of different items compared with “VC1”; gP values of different items compared with “VD1”; P < 0.001.