Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11761203›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2001

Adherence to guidelines on cervical cancer screening in general practice: programme elements of successful implementation.

R P Hermens, E Hak, M E Hulscher, J C Braspenning, R P Grol

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. General practice management of COPD patients following acute exacerbations: a qualitative study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2023
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. A conceptual framework for implementation fidelity.Implementation science : IS · 2007
    Article
  12. Process evaluation on quality improvement interventions.Quality & safety in health care · 2003
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

R P HermensCentre for Quality of Care Research (WOK), University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands. R.Hermens@hsv.kun.nl
E Hak
M E Hulscher
J C Braspenning
R P Grol

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is still only limited understanding of whether and why interventions to facilitate the implementation of guidelines for improving primary care are successful. It is therefore important to look inside the 'black box' of the intervention, to ascertain which elements work well or less well.

aimTo assess the associations of key elements of a nationwide multifaceted prevention programme with the successful implementation of cervical screening guidelines in general practice. DESIGN OF STUDY: A nationwide prospective cohort study.

settingA random sample of one-third of all 4,758 general practices in The Netherlands (n = 1,586).

methodGeneral practitioners (GPs) in The Netherlands were exposed to a two-and-a-half-year nationwide multifaceted prevention programme to improve the adherence to national guidelines for cervical cancer screening. Adherence to guidelines at baseline and after the intervention and actual exposure to programme elements were assessed in the sample using self-administered questionnaires.

resultsBoth baseline and post-measurement questionnaires were returned by 988 practices (response rate = 62%). No major differences in baseline practice characteristics between study population, non-responders, and all Netherlands practices were observed. After the intervention all practices improved markedly (P<0.001) in their incorporation of nine out of 10 guideline indicators for effective cervical screening into practice. The most important elements for successful implementation were: specific software modules (odds ratios and 95% confidence intervalsfor all nine indicators ranged from OR = 1.85 [95% CI = 1.24-2.77] to OR = 10.2 [95% CI = 7.58-14.1]); two or more 'practice visits' by outreach visitors (ORs and 95% CIs for six indicators ranged from OR = 1.46 [95% CI= 1.01-2.12] to OR = 2.35 [95% CI = 1.63-3.38]); and an educational programme for practice assistants (ORs and 95% CIs for four indicators ranged from OR = 1.57 [95% CI = 1.00-1.92] to OR = 1.90 [95% CI = 1.25-2.88]).

conclusionA multifaceted programme targeting GPs, including facilitating software modules, outreach visits, and educational sessions for PAs, contributes to the successful implementation of national guidelines for cervical screening.

Indexed as

Guideline AdherencePractice Guidelines as TopicFamily PracticeFemaleHumansLogistic ModelsMass ScreeningNetherlandsProspective StudiesUterine Cervical Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID11761203
PMCPMC1314146

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.