Utilization of clinical practice guidelines: a survey of Canadian pediatric physicians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: It is not clear how physicians currently use clinical practice guidelines (CPGs).Objectives: The objective was to describe how Canadian pediatric residents and pediatricians use CPGs and to identify barriers to CPG use.Methods: Pediatric emergency physicians and general pediatricians in Edmonton and Ottawa and all Canadian pediatric residents were surveyed regarding patterns of use for CPGs and barriers to use. Results: Response rate was 178/847 (21%). The majority of responding residents (62%), emergency physicians (54%) and general pediatricians teaching more than 6 weeks annually on a clinical teaching unit (CTU) use CPGs at least monthly (55%) with less frequent use by pediatricians who teach 1 to 6 weeks on CTU (14%) or rarely/never teach on CTU (21%) (p<0.001). Canadian physicians are more likely to read Canadian Paediatric Society guidelines when they are published versus referring to them later when dealing with clinical problems while the opposite appears to be true for American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines. The most common barrier to use of guidelines is forgetting that a guideline exists for a specific problem. The majority of physicians access CPGs electronically and support development of web based tools to improve accessibility.Conclusions: Almost all pediatric residents, pediatric emergency physicians and general pediatricians sometimes refer to CPGs. General pediatricians teaching less than 6 weeks per year on CTUs are an important target population, as most use CPGs infrequently. Prompts that CPGs exist and accessible online summaries of CPGs appear to have potential for overcoming the barriers to use.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.255 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".