Trends in guideline implementation: an updated scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to assess trends in guideline implementation, including the interventions used, rationale provided, and the impact on patient or health care professional knowledge, behavior or outcomes. INTRODUCTION: Guidelines must be actively implemented to promote use and achieve beneficial outcomes. A review published in 2015 found that studies of guideline implementation did not employ a range of implementation planning approaches to select and tailor interventions, resulting in inconsistent impact. This study will update the 2015 review and elaborate beyond the four diseases originally covered to determine whether more recent efforts to implement guidelines are informed by best implementation practices. INCLUSION CRITERIA: We will include published studies that describe the implementation of guidelines on any clinical topic relevant to primary, secondary, or tertiary care using interventions targeted at patients, families/caregivers, or health care professionals. METHODS: We will search MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, CINAHL, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library from 2014 (search date in 2015 review) to the present. Two or more reviewers will screen titles and full-text articles, and extract data from included studies. We will use summary statistics, tables, and a narrative summary to describe study characteristics, guideline implementation interventions, the rationale for intervention selection and tailoring (pre-identified barriers, patient or stakeholder preferences, theory), and intervention impact.
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 | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.120 | 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".