MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evidence-Based Strategies for Implementing Guidelines in Obstetrics

2006· review· en· W2021456087 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueObstetrics and Gynecology · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMEDLINEPsychological interventionAuditRandomized controlled trialQuality managementIntervention (counseling)Clinical auditFamily medicineAcademic detailingNursingMedical education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To estimate effective strategies for implementing clinical practice guidelines in obstetric care and to identify specific barriers to behavior change and facilitators in obstetrics. DATA SOURCES: The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and MEDLINE were consulted from January 1990 to June 2005. Additional studies were identified by screening reference lists from identified studies and experts' suggestions. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: Studies of clinical practice guidelines implementation strategies in obstetric care and reviews of such studies were selected. Randomized controlled trials, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series studies were evaluated according to Effective Practice and Organization of Care criteria standards. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Studies were reviewed by two investigators to assess the quality and the efficacy of each strategy. Discordances between the two reviewers were resolved by consensus. In obstetrics, educational strategies with medical providers are generally ineffective; educational strategies with paramedical providers, opinion leaders, qualitative improvement, and academic detailing have mixed effects; audit and feedback, reminders, and multifaceted strategies are generally effective. These findings differ from data on the efficacy of clinical practice guidelines implementation strategies in other medical specialties. Specific barriers to behavior change in obstetrics and methods to overcome these barriers could explain these differences. The proportion of effective strategies is significantly higher among the interventions that include a prospective identification of barriers to change compared with standardized interventions. CONCLUSION: Prospective identification of efficient strategies and barriers to change is necessary to achieve a better adaptation of intervention and to improve clinical practice guidelines implementation. In the field of obstetric care, multifaceted strategy based on audit and feedback and facilitated by local opinion leaders is recommended to effectively change behaviors.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.271
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.271
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.530
GPT teacher head0.539
Teacher spread0.009 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it