MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062337491 · doi:10.1016/s0840-4704(10)60731-4

Clinical Practice Guidelines: <i>The Need for Improved Implementation Strategies</i>

2000· review· en· W2062337491 on OpenAlexaff
Glen E. Randall, D. Wayne Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Management Forum · 2000
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsCanadian Association of Occupational TherapistsMcMaster UniversityOntario Society of Occupational Therapists
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClinical PracticeKey (lock)Quality (philosophy)Process managementMedicineComputer scienceNursingBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although substantial resources have been spent developing clinical practice guidelines, little effort has been made to evaluate the effectiveness of their implementation. In the absence of effective implementation, CPGs will have minimal impact on changing behaviours. This article critically reviews the literature and identifies a number of reasons why these guidelines have not been implemented successfully. If CPGs are to have a positive impact upon clinical behaviour and practice, then more aggressive and positive implementation strategies are indicated. Five key ingredients for successful implementation of quality CPGs are identified and recommended.

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 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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-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 score0.739
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.388
GPT teacher head0.622
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Management ForumSame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207