123
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Barriers and Strategies in Guideline Implementation—A Scoping Review

      review-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

          Research indicates that clinical guidelines are often not applied. The success of their implementation depends on the consideration of a variety of barriers and the use of adequate strategies to overcome them. Therefore, this scoping review aims to describe and categorize the most important barriers to guideline implementation. Furthermore, it provides an overview of different kinds of suitable strategies that are tailored to overcome these barriers. The search algorithm led to the identification of 1659 articles in PubMed. Overall, 69 articles were included in the data synthesis. The content of these articles was analysed by using a qualitative synthesis approach, to extract the most important information on barriers and strategies. The barriers to guideline implementation can be differentiated into personal factors, guideline-related factors, and external factors. The scoping review revealed the following aspects as central elements of successful strategies for guideline implementation: dissemination, education and training, social interaction, decision support systems and standing orders. Available evidence indicates that a structured implementation can improve adherence to guidelines. Therefore, the barriers to guideline implementation and adherence need to be analysed in advance so that strategies that are tailored to the specific setting and target groups can be developed.

          Related collections

          Most cited references78

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

          Effect of clinical guidelines on medical practice: a systematic review of rigorous evaluations.

          Although interest in clinical guidelines has never been greater, uncertainty persists about whether they are effective. The debate has been hampered by the lack of a rigorous overview. We have identified 59 published evaluations of clinical guidelines that met defined criteria for scientific rigour; 24 investigated guidelines for specific clinical conditions, 27 studied preventive care, and 8 looked at guidelines for prescribing or for support services. All but 4 of these studies detected significant improvements in the process of care after the introduction of guidelines and all but 2 of the 11 studies that assessed the outcome of care reported significant improvements. We conclude that explicit guidelines do improve clinical practice, when introduced in the context of rigorous evaluations. However, the size of the improvements in performance varied considerably.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Barriers to Primary Care Clinician Adherence to Clinical Guidelines for the Management of Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Metasynthesis of Qualitative Studies.

            Despite the availability of evidence-based guidelines for the management of low back pain (LBP) that contain consistent messages, large evidence-practice gaps in primary care remain.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Barriers to adherence to COPD guidelines among primary care providers.

              Despite efforts to disseminate guidelines for managing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), adherence to COPD guidelines remains suboptimal. Barriers to adhering to guidelines remain poorly understood. Clinicians from two general medicine practices in New York City were surveyed to identify barriers to implementing seven recommendations from the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) guidelines. Barriers assessed included unfamiliarity, disagreement, low perceived benefit, low self-efficacy, and time constraints. Exact conditional regression was used to identify barriers independently associated with non-adherence. The survey was completed by 154 clinicians. Adherence was lowest to referring patients with a forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1)) <80% predicted to pulmonary rehabilitation (5%); using FEV(1) to guide management (12%); and ordering pulmonary function tests (PFTs) in smokers (17%). Adherence was intermediate to prescribing inhaled corticosteroids when FEV(1) <50% predicted (41%) and long-acting bronchodilators when FEV(1) <80% predicted (54%). Adherence was highest for influenza vaccination (90%) and smoking cessation counseling (91%). In unadjusted analyses, low familiarity with the guidelines, low self-efficacy, and time constraints were significantly associated with non-adherence to ≥2 recommendations. In adjusted analyses, low self-efficacy was associated with less adherence to prescribing inhaled corticosteroids (OR: 0.28; 95% CI: 0.10, 0.74) and time constraints were associated with less adherence to ordering PFTs in smokers (OR: 0.31; 95% CI: 0.08, 0.99). Poor familiarity with recommendations, low self-efficacy, and time constraints are important barriers to adherence to COPD guidelines. This information can be used to develop tailored interventions to improve guideline adherence. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Academic Editor
                Journal
                Healthcare (Basel)
                Healthcare (Basel)
                healthcare
                Healthcare
                MDPI
                2227-9032
                29 June 2016
                September 2016
                : 4
                : 3
                : 36
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Public Health Medicine, School of Public Health, Bielefeld University, 33615 Bielefeld, Germany; kerstin.lange@ 123456uni-bielefeld.de (K.L.); alexander.kraemer@ 123456uni-bielefeld.de (A.K.)
                [2 ]Department of Health Care Management, School of Public Health, Bielefeld University, 33615 Bielefeld, Germany; kristina.klose@ 123456uni-bielefeld.de (K.K.); wolfgang.greiner@ 123456uni-bielefeld.de (W.G.)
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence: f.fischer@ 123456uni-bielefeld.de ; Tel.: +49-521-106-4257
                Article
                healthcare-04-00036
                10.3390/healthcare4030036
                5041037
                27417624
                40147ff3-b1e7-42de-985a-ee813e3cc4ac
                © 2016 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.

                This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 28 April 2016
                : 24 June 2016
                Categories
                Review

                guideline implementation,scoping review,barrier,strategy

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                Related Documents Log
                scite_

                Similar content234

                Cited by264

                Most referenced authors1,482