160
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Perceived barriers to guideline adherence: A survey among general practitioners

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Despite considerable efforts to promote and support guideline use, adherence is often suboptimal. Barriers to adherence vary not only across guidelines but also across recommendations within guidelines. The aim of this study was to assess the perceived barriers to guideline adherence among GPs by focusing on key recommendations within guidelines.

          Methods

          We conducted a cross-sectional electronic survey among 703 GPs in the Netherlands. Sixteen key recommendations were derived from four national guidelines. Six statements were included to address the attitudes towards guidelines in general. In addition, GPs were asked to rate their perceived adherence (one statement) and the perceived barriers (fourteen statements) for each of the key recommendations, based on an existing framework.

          Results

          264 GPs (38%) completed the questionnaire. Although 35% of the GPs reported difficulties in changing routines and habits to follow guidelines, 89% believed that following guidelines leads to improved patient care. Perceived adherence varied between 52 and 95% across recommendations (mean: 77%). The most perceived barriers were related to external factors, in particular patient ability and behaviour (mean: 30%) and patient preferences (mean: 23%). Lack of applicability of recommendations in general (mean: 22%) and more specifically to individual patients (mean: 25%) were also frequently perceived as barriers. The scores on perceived barriers differed largely between recommendations [minimum range 14%; maximum range 67%].

          Conclusions

          Dutch GPs have a positive attitude towards the NHG guidelines, report high adherence rates and low levels of perceived barriers. However, the perceived adherence and perceived barriers varied largely across recommendations. The most perceived barriers across recommendations are patient related, suggesting that current guidelines do not always adequately incorporate patient preferences, needs and abilities. It may be useful to provide tools such as decision aids, supporting the flexible use of guidelines to individual patients in practice.

          Related collections

          Most cited references16

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Toward evidence-based quality improvement. Evidence (and its limitations) of the effectiveness of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies 1966-1998.

          To determine effectiveness and costs of different guideline dissemination and implementation strategies. MEDLINE (1966 to 1998), HEALTHSTAR (1975 to 1998), Cochrane Controlled Trial Register (4th edn 1998), EMBASE (1980 to 1998), SIGLE (1980 to 1988), and the specialized register of the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care group. Randomized-controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, controlled before and after studies, and interrupted time series evaluating guideline dissemination and implementation strategies targeting medically qualified health care professionals that reported objective measures of provider behavior and/or patient outcome. Two reviewers independently abstracted data on the methodologic quality of the studies, characteristics of study setting, participants, targeted behaviors, and interventions. We derived single estimates of dichotomous process variables (e.g., proportion of patients receiving appropriate treatment) for each study comparison and reported the median and range of effect sizes observed by study group and other quality criteria. We included 309 comparisons derived from 235 studies. The overall quality of the studies was poor. Seventy-three percent of comparisons evaluated multifaceted interventions. Overall, the majority of comparisons (86.6%) observed improvements in care; for example, the median absolute improvement in performance across interventions ranged from 14.1% in 14 cluster-randomized comparisons of reminders, 8.1% in 4 cluster-randomized comparisons of dissemination of educational materials, 7.0% in 5 cluster-randomized comparisons of audit and feedback, and 6.0% in 13 cluster-randomized comparisons of multifaceted interventions involving educational outreach. We found no relationship between the number of components and the effects of multifaceted interventions. Only 29.4% of comparisons reported any economic data. Current guideline dissemination and implementation strategies can lead to improvements in care within the context of rigorous evaluative studies. However, there is an imperfect evidence base to support decisions about which guideline dissemination and implementation strategies are likely to be efficient under different circumstances. Decision makers need to use considerable judgment about how best to use the limited resources they have for quality improvement activities.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Evidence of self-report bias in assessing adherence to guidelines.

            To assess trends in the use of self-report measures in research on adherence to practice guidelines since 1980, and to determine the impact of response bias on the validity of self-reports as measures of quality of care. We conducted a MEDLINE search using defined search terms for the period 1980 to 1996. Included studies evaluated the adherence of clinicians to practice guidelines, official policies, or other evidence-based recommendations. Among studies containing both self-report (e.g. interviews) and objective measures of adherence (e.g. medical records), we compared self-reported and objective adherence rates (measured as per cent adherence). Evidence of response bias was defined as self-reported adherence significantly exceeding the objective measure at the 5% level. We identified 326 studies of guideline adherence. The use of self-report measures of adherence increased from 18% of studies in 1980 to 41% of studies in 1985. Of the 10 studies that used both self-report and objective measures, eight supported the existence of response bias in all self-reported measures. In 87% of 37 comparisons, self-reported adherence rates exceeded the objective rates, resulting in a median over-estimation of adherence of 27% (absolute difference). Although self-reports may provide information regarding clinicians' knowledge of guideline recommendations, they are subject to bias and should not be used as the sole measure of guideline adherence.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              The next step in guideline development: incorporating patient preferences.

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMC Fam Pract
                BMC Family Practice
                BioMed Central
                1471-2296
                2011
                22 September 2011
                : 12
                : 98
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Scientific Centre for Care and Welfare (Tranzo), Tilburg University, PO Box 90153, 5000 LE Tilburg, the Netherlands
                [2 ]Scientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare (IQ healthcare), Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, the Netherlands
                Article
                1471-2296-12-98
                10.1186/1471-2296-12-98
                3197492
                21939542
                0f467d7d-d878-4e75-a413-bebd5c993eab
                Copyright ©2011 Lugtenberg et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 25 March 2011
                : 22 September 2011
                Categories
                Research Article

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                Related Documents Log