A controlled ‘before-after’ study: impact of a clinical guidelines programme and regional cancer network organization on medical practice
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
A regional cancer network has been set up in the Rhône-Alpes region in France. The aim of the project is to improve the quality of care and to rationalize prescriptions in the network. In this network, we assessed the impact of the implementation of a clinical practice guidelines project by assessing the conformity of practice with the guidelines and comparing this with the conformity in an external matched control group from another French region without a regional cancer network. Four hospitals (private and public) accepted to assess the impact of the clinical practice guidelines on the management of breast and colon cancer in the experimental group and three hospitals (private and public) in the control group. In 1994 and 1996, women with non-metastatic breast cancer (282 and 346 patients in the experimental group, 194 and 172 patients in the control group, respectively) and all new patients with colon cancer (95 and 94 patients in the experimental group, and 89 and 118 patients in the control group, respectively) were selected. A controlled "before-after" study, using institutional medical records of patients with breast and colon cancer. The medical decisions concerning the patients were analyzed to assess their compliance with the clinical practice guidelines. When medical decisions were judged to be non-compliant, we verified if they were based on scientific evidence in a published article, if they were not, the medical decision was classified as having "no convincing supporting scientific evidence". The compliance rates were significantly higher in 1996 than in 1994 in the experimental group; 36% (126 out of 346) vs 12% (34 out of 282) and 46% (56 out of 123) vs 14% (14 out of 103) (P<0.001) for breast and colon cancer, respectively. Whereas, in the control group the compliance rates were the same for the two periods; 7% (12 out of 173) vs 6% (12 out of 194) (P=0.46) and 39% (49 out of 126) vs 32% (31 out of 96), P=0.19. In the experimental group, in 1994, 101 of the 282 medical decisions (36%) and 27 of the 103 (26%) for breast and colon cancer, respectively, were classified as having "no convincing supporting scientific evidence" compare with 72 out of 346 in 1996 (21%) for breast cancer, and 21 of the 123 (17%) for colon cancer P<0.05. Whereas in the control group these results were 106 out of 194 in 1994 (55%) and 90 out of 172 in 1996 (52%), P=0.65 for breast cancer and 28 out of 96 in 1994 (29%) and 30 out of 126 in 1996 (24%), P=0.36 for colon cancer. The development and implementation strategy of the clinical practice guidelines programme for cancer management results in significant changes in medical practice in our cancer network. These results would suggest that introducing guidelines with specific implementation strategy might also increase the compliance rate with the guideline and "evidence-based medicine".
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,015 | 0,020 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».