MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2038028146 · doi:10.3310/hta8060

Effectiveness and efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies

2004· review· en· W2038028146 sur OpenAlexaff
Jeremy Grimshaw, Ruth Thomas, Graeme MacLennan, Cynthia Fraser, Craig Ramsay, Luke Vale, Paula Whitty, Martin Eccles, Lloyd Matowe, Liz Shirran, Michel Wensing, Rob Dijkstra, Cam Donaldson

Notice bibliographique

RevueHealth Technology Assessment · 2004
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueHealth Policy Implementation Science
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Calgary
Organismes subventionnairesHealth Technology Assessment ProgrammeNational Institute for Health and Care Research
Mots-clésPsychological interventionMedicineGuidelineMEDLINESystematic reviewAuditRandomized controlled trialIntervention (counseling)Family medicineCochrane LibraryOutreachNursingAccounting

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To undertake a systematic review of the effectiveness and costs of different guideline development, dissemination and implementation strategies. To estimate the resource implications of these strategies. To develop a framework for deciding when it is efficient to develop and introduce clinical guidelines. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Healthstar, Cochrane Controlled Trial Register, EMBASE, SIGLE and the specialised register of the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) group. REVIEW METHODS: Single estimates of dichotomous process variables were derived for each study comparison based upon the primary end-point or the median measure across several reported end-points. Separate analyses were undertaken for comparisons of different types of intervention. The study also explored whether the effects of multifaceted interventions increased with the number of intervention components. Studies reporting economic data were also critically appraised. A survey to estimate the feasibility and likely resource requirements of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies in UK settings was carried out with key informants from primary and secondary care. RESULTS: In total, 235 studies reporting 309 comparisons met the inclusion criteria; of these 73% of comparisons evaluated multifaceted interventions, although the maximum number of replications of a specific multifaceted intervention was 11 comparisons. Overall, the majority of comparisons reporting dichotomous process data observed improvements in care; however, there was considerable variation in the observed effects both within and across interventions. Commonly evaluated single interventions were reminders, dissemination of educational materials, and audit and feedback. There were 23 comparisons of multifaceted interventions involving educational outreach. The majority of interventions observed modest to moderate improvements in care. No relationship was found between the number of component interventions and the effects of multifaceted interventions. Only 29.4% of comparisons reported any economic data. The majority of studies only reported costs of treatment; only 25 studies reported data on the costs of guideline development or guideline dissemination and implementation. The majority of studies used process measures for their primary end-point, despite the fact that only three guidelines were explicitly evidence based (and may not have been efficient). Respondents to the key informant survey rarely identified existing budgets to support guideline dissemination and implementation strategies. In general, the respondents thought that only dissemination of educational materials and short (lunchtime) educational meetings were generally feasible within current resources. CONCLUSIONS: 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 judgement about how best to use the limited resources they have for clinical governance and related activities to maximise population benefits. They need to consider the potential clinical areas for clinical effectiveness activities, the likely benefits and costs required to introduce guidelines and the likely benefits and costs as a result of any changes in provider behaviour. Further research is required to: develop and validate a coherent theoretical framework of health professional and organisational behaviour and behaviour change to inform better the choice of interventions in research and service settings, and to estimate the efficiency of dissemination and implementation strategies in the presence of different barriers and effect modifiers.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,220
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,524
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,220
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,962

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,2200,524
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0100,014
Bibliométrie0,0130,016
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,002
Communication savante0,0080,010
Science ouverte0,0030,005
Intégrité de la recherche0,0040,004
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0050,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,287
Tête enseignante GPT0,734
Écart entre enseignants0,447 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations3 054
Publié2004
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueHealth Technology AssessmentMême sujetHealth Policy Implementation ScienceTravaux en français237 207