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

      Barriers and facilitators to implementing a continuing medical education intervention in a primary health care setting

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          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

          Continuing medical education (CME), as a systematic attempt to facilitate change in General Practitioners’ (GPs) practices, is considered crucial, assuming that if physicians are up-to-date, they will change and improve their practice, resulting in better performance and ultimately better patient care. However, studies continue to demonstrate considerable gaps between the real and ideal performance and patient-related outcomes. The objective of this study was to explore GP’s perception of the factors affecting the implementation of a CME digital platform in a primary health care setting in Portugal.

          Methods

          Our work is framed in a larger effectiveness-implementation hybrid type 1 study, where a Digital Behaviour Change Intervention (DBCI), called ePrimaPrescribe, was developed and implemented with the aim of changing benzodiazepines (BZD) prescribing patterns. Our design used mixed methodologies to obtain an enriched knowledge on GPs’ perspectives on the facilitators and barriers to implementing a Digital Behaviour Change Intervention (DBCI) applied to CME. To do so, we used data coming from an onsite questionnaire, an adapted version of the Barriers and Facilitators Assessment Instrument (BaFAI) and in-depth interviews.

          Results

          From the 47 GPs successfully included in the intervention arm of our cluster-randomized effectiveness study, we collected 37 onsite questionnaires, 24 BaFAIs, and performed 12 in-depth interviews. GPs reported as the main barriers to CME a lack of time, a perception of work overload, a lack of digital competence, a lack of digital infrastructure, and motivational and emotional factors. They reported as facilitators to CME delivered through a DBCI the convenience of the delivery method, the practical and pragmatic characteristics of the content, and the possibility for CME to be mandatory.

          Conclusions

          The perceptions of the barriers and facilitators reported by GPs represent an important contribution to improving knowledge regarding the factors influencing the implementation of CME in primary health care settings. We consider that our study might bring useful insights to other countries where primary health care plays a central role in the provision of care.

          Trial registration

          ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT04925596.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08019-w.

          Related collections

          Most cited references28

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

          Comparison of the instructional efficacy of Internet-based CME with live interactive CME workshops: a randomized controlled trial.

          Despite evidence that a variety of continuing medical education (CME) techniques can foster physician behavioral change, there have been no randomized trials comparing performance outcomes for physicians participating in Internet-based CME with physicians participating in a live CME intervention using approaches documented to be effective. To determine if Internet-based CME can produce changes comparable to those produced via live, small-group, interactive CME with respect to physician knowledge and behaviors that have an impact on patient care. Randomized controlled trial conducted from August 2001 to July 2002. Participants were 97 primary care physicians drawn from 21 practice sites in Houston, Tex, including 7 community health centers and 14 private group practices. A control group of 18 physicians from these same sites received no intervention. Physicians were randomly assigned to an Internet-based CME intervention that could be completed in multiple sessions over 2 weeks, or to a single live, small-group, interactive CME workshop. Both incorporated similar multifaceted instructional approaches demonstrated to be effective in live settings. Content was based on the National Institutes of Health National Cholesterol Education Program--Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines. Knowledge was assessed immediately before the intervention, immediately after the intervention, and 12 weeks later. The percentage of high-risk patients who had appropriate lipid panel screening and pharmacotherapeutic treatment according to guidelines was documented with chart audits conducted over a 5-month period before intervention and a 5-month period after intervention. Both interventions produced similar and significant immediate and 12-week knowledge gains, representing large increases in percentage of items correct (pretest to posttest: 31.0% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 27.0%-35.0%]; pretest to 12 weeks: 36.4% [95% CI, 32.2%-40.6%]; P or =93%) with no significant postintervention change. However, the Internet-based intervention was associated with a significant increase in the percentage of high-risk patients treated with pharmacotherapeutics according to guidelines (preintervention, 85.3%; postintervention, 90.3%; P = .04). Appropriately designed, evidence-based online CME can produce objectively measured changes in behavior as well as sustained gains in knowledge that are comparable or superior to those realized from effective live activities.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Effects of continuing medical education on improving physician clinical care and patient health: a review of systematic reviews.

            The objective of physician continuing medical education (CME) is to help them keep abreast of advances in patient care, to accept new more-beneficial care, and discontinue use of existing lower-benefit diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. The goal of this review was to examine effectiveness of current CME tools and techniques in changing physician clinical practices and improving patient health outcomes. Results of published systematic reviews were examined to determine the spectrum from most- to least-effective CME techniques. We searched multiple databases, from 1 January 1984 to 30 October 2004, for English-language, peer-reviewed meta-analyses and other systematic reviews of CME programs that alter physician behavior and/or patient outcomes. Twenty-six reviews met inclusion criteria, that is, were either formal meta-analyses or other systematic reviews. Interactive techniques (audit/feedback, academic detailing/outreach, and reminders) are the most effective at simultaneously changing physician care and patient outcomes. Clinical practice guidelines and opinion leaders are less effective. Didactic presentations and distributing printed information only have little or no beneficial effect in changing physician practice. Even though the most-effective CME techniques have been proven, use of least-effective ones predominates. Such use of ineffective CME likely reduces patient care quality and raises costs for all, the worst of both worlds.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Perceived barriers to guideline adherence: A survey among general practitioners

              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.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                teresa.reis@nms.unl.pt
                ifaria@socius.iseg.ulisboa.pt
                helena.serra@fcsh.unl.pt
                miguel.xavier@nms.unl.pt
                Journal
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Services Research
                BioMed Central (London )
                1472-6963
                13 May 2022
                13 May 2022
                2022
                : 22
                : 638
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.10772.33, ISNI 0000000121511713, Nova Medical School, , Comprehensive Health Research Centre (CHRC), Universidade NOVA de Lisboa, ; Campo Mártires da Pátria, 130, 1169-056 Lisbon, Portugal
                [2 ]GRID grid.9983.b, ISNI 0000 0001 2181 4263, Research Centre in Economic and Organizational Sociology, , Lisbon, School of Economics and Management, University of Lisbon (CSG-SOCIUS/ISEG, U.Lisboa), ; Lisbon, Portugal
                [3 ]GRID grid.10772.33, ISNI 0000000121511713, Interdisciplinary Centre of Social Sciences (CICS.NOVA), , NOVA School of Social Sciences and Humanities, Universidade NOVA de Lisboa, ; Lisbon, Portugal
                [4 ]GRID grid.10772.33, ISNI 0000000121511713, National coordinator of mental health policies, Portuguese Ministry of Health, , Comprehensive Health Research Centre (CHRC), NOVA Medical School, Universidade NOVA de Lisboa, ; Lisbon, Portugal
                Article
                8019
                10.1186/s12913-022-08019-w
                9099036
                35562695
                946d3995-8129-452b-832f-1661a44f1a8d
                © The Author(s) 2022

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 4 August 2021
                : 22 April 2022
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2022

                Health & Social care
                general practitioners,primary health care,continuing medical education,barriers,facilitators,mixed methodology

                Comments

                Comment on this article