Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23497520›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2013

Refining a taxonomy for guideline implementation: results of an exercise in abstract classification.

Danielle Mazza, Phillip Bairstow, Heather Buchan, Samantha Paubrey Chakraborty, Oliver Van Hecke, Cathy Grech, Ilkka Kunnamo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 78 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
78citing papers in PubMed, 9 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

78 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

18 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

7 authors.

Danielle MazzaDepartment of General Practice, School of Primary Health Care, Faculty of Medicine Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Ferntree Gully Rd, Notting Hill, Victoria, Australia. Danielle.Mazza@monash.edu
Phillip Bairstow
Heather Buchan
Samantha Paubrey Chakraborty
Oliver Van Hecke
Cathy Grech
Ilkka Kunnamo

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo better understand the efficacy of various implementation strategies, improved methods for describing and classifying the nature of these strategies are urgently required. The aim of this study was to develop and pilot the feasibility of a taxonomy to classify the nature and content of implementation strategies.

methodsA draft implementation taxonomy was developed based on the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) data collection checklist. The draft taxonomy had four domains (professional, financial, organisational and regulatory) covering 49 distinct strategies. We piloted the draft taxonomy by using it to classify the implementation strategies described in the conference abstracts of the implementation stream of the 2010 Guideline International Network Conference. Five authors classified the strategies in each abstract individually. Final categorisation was then carried out in a face-to-face consensus meeting involving three authors.

resultsThe implementation strategies described in 71 conference abstracts were classified. Approximately 15.5% of abstracts utilised strategies that could not be categorised using the draft taxonomy. Of those strategies that could be categorised, the majority were professionally focused (57%). A total of 41% of projects used only one implementation strategy, with 29% using two and 31% three or more. The three most commonly used strategies were changes in quality assurance, quality improvement and/or performance measurement systems, changes in information and communication technology, and distribution of guideline materials (via hard-copy, audio-visual and/or electronic means).

conclusionsFurther refinement of the draft taxonomy is required to provide hierarchical dimensions and granularity, particularly in the areas of patient-focused interventions, those concerned with audit and feedback and quality improvement, and electronic forms of implementation, including electronic decision support.

Indexed as

ClassificationGuideline AdherencePractice Guidelines as TopicChecklistEvidence-Based MedicineFeasibility StudiesPilot Projects

Identifiers

PMID23497520
PMCPMC3606141

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.