Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25003371›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

Tailored implementation of evidence-based practice for patients with chronic diseases.

Michel Wensing, Elke Huntink, Jan van Lieshout, Maciek Godycki-Cwirko, Anna Kowalczyk, Cornelia Jäger, Jost Steinhäuser, Eivind Aakhus, Signe Flottorp, Martin Eccles and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Tailored interventions to address determinants of practice.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Making sense of the outcome of a rehabilitation implementation trial in the intensive care unit: Mixed methods.The Southern African journal of critical care : the official journal of the Critical Care Society · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Cognitive screening and rehabilitation after cardiac arrest: only a few hurdles to take.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

11 authors.

Michel WensingRadboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Elke HuntinkRadboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Jan van LieshoutRadboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Maciek Godycki-CwirkoMedical University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland.
Anna KowalczykMedical University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland.
Cornelia JägerHeidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Jost SteinhäuserHeidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Eivind AakhusNorwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, Oslo, Norway.
Signe FlottorpNorwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, Oslo, Norway.
Martin EcclesNewcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Richard BakerUniversity of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhen designing interventions and policies to implement evidence based healthcare, tailoring strategies to the targeted individuals and organizations has been recommended. We aimed to gather insights into the ideas of a variety of people for implementing evidence-based practice for patients with chronic diseases, which were generated in five European countries.

methodsA qualitative study in five countries (Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, United Kingdom) was done, involving overall 115 individuals. A purposeful sample of four categories of stakeholders (healthcare professionals, quality improvement officers, healthcare purchasers and authorities, and health researchers) was involved in group interviews in each of the countries to generate items for improving healthcare in different chronic conditions per country: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cardiovascular disease, depression in elderly people, multi-morbidity, obesity. A disease-specific standardized list of determinants of practice in these conditions provided the starting point for these groups. The content of the suggested items was categorized in a pre-defined framework of 7 domains and specific themes in the items were identified within each domain.

resultsThe 115 individuals involved in the study generated 812 items, of which 586 addressed determinants of practice. These largely mapped onto three domains: individual health professional factors, patient factors, and professional interactions. Few items addressed guideline factors, incentives and resources, capacity of organizational change, or social, political and legal factors. The relative numbers of items in the different domains were largely similar across stakeholder categories within each of the countries. The analysis identified 29 specific themes in the suggested items across countries.

conclusionThe type of suggestions for improving healthcare practice was largely similar across different stakeholder groups, mainly addressing healthcare professionals, patient factors and professional interactions. As this study is one of the first of its kind, it is important that more research is done on tailored implementation strategies.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based MedicineChronic DiseaseDisease ManagementHumansPractice Guidelines as TopicPrecision Medicine

Identifiers

PMID25003371
PMCPMC4087017

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.