MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2895910030 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0205280

Knowledge translation of clinical practice guidelines among neurologists: A mixed-methods study

2018· article· en· W2895910030 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Khara M. Sauro, Samuel Wiebe, Jayna Holroyd‐Leduc, Carolyn DeCoster, Hude Quan, Meaghan Bell, Nathalie Jetté

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersResearch Services, University of CalgaryAlberta InnovatesHotchkiss Brain Institute, University of Calgary
KeywordsGuidelineKnowledge translationCredibilityPsychological interventionMedicinePopulationFocus groupResource (disambiguation)PsychologyFamily medicineMedical educationNursingEnvironmental healthKnowledge managementComputer scienceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Clinical practice guidelines have the potential to improve care, but are often not optimally implemented. Improving guideline use in clinical practice may improve care. The objective of this study was to identify the barriers and facilitators (determinants) of guidelines use among neurologists and to propose a strategy to improve guideline implementation. METHODS: This was a mixed-methods study design. A quantitative, population-based, cross-sectional survey of Canadian neurologists was conducted. Associations between guidelines use and determinants of guidelines use were examined. Focus groups and interviews were conducted using purposeful sampling of the population. Determinants of guideline use were mapped to interventions to establish a strategy for guideline implementation among neurologists. RESULTS: 38.7% (n = 311) of neurologists responded to the survey. Typically, respondents had been practicing for 16.6 years and worked in an academic institution in an urban setting. Being male and having an academic affiliation was associated with guideline use. Determinants of guideline use differed between guideline users and non-users; non-users consistently rating determinants lower than users, especially applicability. Two focus groups and one interview (n = 11) identified six main themes of determinants of guideline use: Credibility, knowledge, applicability, resources, motivation, and target audience; which was congruent with the quantitative data. The proposed knowledge translation strategy contains three pillars: guidelines development, dissemination, and interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Several determinants of guideline use not commonly discussed in the literature were identified (applicability, target audience, credibility). The proposed implementation strategy is a valuable resource for guideline developers and policy/decision-makers to improve knowledge translation of guidelines among neurologists.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.071
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.093
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.375

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0710.093
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.704
GPT teacher head0.637
Teacher spread0.067 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations11
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207