Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23656884›Full record

Observational studyImplementation science : IS2013

Guideline adaptation and implementation planning: a prospective observational study.

Margaret B Harrison, Ian D Graham, Joan van den Hoek, Elizabeth J Dogherty, Meg E Carley, Valerie Angus

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study 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 64 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
9.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

64 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 165 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Guideline
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. A Prospective Multi-Center Implementation Study to Improve the Diagnosis and Treatment of Benign Paroxysmal Positional Vertigo.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

4 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Margaret B HarrisonSchool of Nursing, Queen's University, 78 Barrie Street, Kingston, Ontario, K7L 3N6, Canada. margaret.b.harrison@queensu.ca
Ian D Graham
Joan van den Hoek
Elizabeth J Dogherty
Meg E Carley
Valerie Angus
Queen's University · CAUniversity of Ottawa · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdaptation of high-quality practice guidelines for local use has been advanced as an efficient means to improve acceptability and applicability of evidence-informed care. In a pan-Canadian study, we examined how cancer care groups adapted pre-existing guidelines to their unique context and began implementation planning.

methodsUsing a mixed-methods, case-study design, five cases were purposefully sampled from self-identified groups and followed as they used a structured method and resources for guideline adaptation. Cases received the ADAPTE Collaboration toolkit, facilitation, methodological and logistical support, resources and assistance as required. Documentary and primary data collection methods captured individual case experience, including monthly summaries of meeting and field notes, email/telephone correspondence, and project records. Site visits, process audits, interviews, and a final evaluation forum with all cases contributed to a comprehensive account of participant experience.

resultsStudy cases took 12 to >24 months to complete guideline adaptation. Although participants appreciated the structure, most found the ADAPTE method complex and lacking practical aspects. They needed assistance establishing individual guideline mandate and infrastructure, articulating health questions, executing search strategies, appraising evidence, and achieving consensus. Facilitation was described as a multi-faceted process, a team effort, and an essential ingredient for guideline adaptation. While front-line care providers implicitly identified implementation issues during adaptation, they identified a need to add an explicit implementation planning component.

conclusionsGuideline adaptation is a positive initial step toward evidence-informed care, but adaptation (vs. 'de novo' development) did not meet expectations for reducing time or resource commitments. Undertaking adaptation is as much about the process (engagement and capacity building) as it is about the product (adapted guideline). To adequately address local concerns, cases found it necessary to also search and appraise primary studies, resulting in hybrid (adaptation plus de novo) guideline development strategies that required advanced methodological skills.Adaptation was found to be an action element in the knowledge translation continuum that required integration of an implementation perspective. Accordingly, the adaptation methodology and resources were reformulated and substantially augmented to provide practical assistance to groups not supported by a dedicated guideline panel and to provide more implementation planning support. The resulting framework is called CAN-IMPLEMENT.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicCanadaCase-Control StudiesDelivery of Health Care, IntegratedEvidence-Based MedicineGuideline AdherenceHealth ResourcesHumansNeoplasmsPatient Care PlanningPilot ProjectsPlatelet TransfusionProspective StudiesStress, PsychologicalTranslational Research, BiomedicalWound Healing

Identifiers

PMID23656884
PMCPMC3668213
OpenAlexW2149197712

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.