Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25844365›Full record

ArticleCMAJ open

The development of guideline implementation tools: a qualitative study.

Anna R Gagliardi, Melissa C Brouwers, Onil K Bhattacharyya

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in CMAJ open. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 24 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 5 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.

NCT04093245 naunknown statusnot on this map

Supporting the Creation of a LEARNing INteGrated Health System to Mobilize Context-adapted Knowledge With a Wiki Platform to Improve the Transitions of Frail Seniors From From Hospitals and Emergency Departments to the cOMmunity: Phase II

TypeinterventionalSponsorLaval UniversityRan2019 to 2022Enrolled4,000ConditionsTransition, Emergencies, Health Care Utilization, FrailtyArmsGEM nurse, pre- and post-hospitalization medication list reconciliation, systematic discharge summaries, medical follow-up appointment, follow-up phone call
NCT04140084 naunknown statusnot on this map

Wiki Head CT Choice Study: Adaptation of Two Decision Aids to Support Shared Decision Making About Performing a Head CT for Adult and Pediatric Victims of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury

TypeinterventionalSponsorLaval UniversityRan2018 to 2020Enrolled40ConditionsMild Traumatic Brain Injury, Emergencies, Decision-makingArmsReal-life clinical meetings
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. How to identify, incorporate and report patient preferences in clinical guidelines: A scoping review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  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

3 authors.

Anna R GagliardiUniversity Health Network, Toronto, Ont.
Melissa C BrouwersMcMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
Onil K BhattacharyyaWomen's College Hospital, Toronto, Ont.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundResearch shows that guidelines featuring implementation tools (GItools) are more likely to be used than those without GItools, however few guidelines offer GItools and guidance on developing GItools is lacking. The objective of this study was to identify common processes and considerations for developing GItools.

methodsInterviews were conducted with developers of 4 types of GItools (implementation, patient engagement, point-of-care decision-making and evaluation) accompanying guidelines on various topics created in 2008 or later identified in the National Guideline Clearinghouse. Participants were asked to describe the GItool development process and related considerations. A descriptive qualitative approach was used to collect and analyze data.

resultsInterviews were conducted with 26 GItool developers in 9 countries. Participants largely agreed on 11 broad steps, each with several tasks and considerations. Response variations identified issues lacking uniform approaches that may require further research including timing of GItool development relative to guideline development; decisions about GItool type, format and content; and whether and how to engage stakeholders. Although developers possessed few dedicated resources, they relied on partnerships to develop, implement and evaluate GItools.

interpretationGItool developers employed fairly uniform and rigorous processes for developing GItools. By supporting GItool development, the GItool methods identified here may improve guideline implementation and use.

Identifiers

PMID25844365
PMCPMC4382042

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.