Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26692267›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2015

What drives junior doctors to use clinical practice guidelines? A national cross-sectional survey of foundation doctors in England & Wales.

Logan Manikam, L Manikam, Andrew Hoy, A Hoy, Hannah Fosker, H Fosker, Martin Ho Yin Wong, Jay Banerjee, J Banerjee, Monica Lakhanpaul and 5 more

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 9 papers.

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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Logan Manikam
L ManikamPopulation, Policy and Practice, UCL Institute of Child Health, 30 Guildford Street, London, WC1N 1EH, UK. logan.manikam.10@ucl.ac.uk.
Andrew Hoy
A HoyNational Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 10 Spring Gardens, London, SW1A 2BU, UK. andrewrh.work@gmail.com.
Hannah Fosker
H FoskerUniversity Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Infirmary Square, Leicester, LE1 5WW, UK. hannahfosker@nhs.net.
Martin Ho Yin WongUniversity College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, 235 Euston Road, London, NW1 2BU, UK. martin.wong@doctors.org.uk.
Jay Banerjee
J BanerjeeUniversity Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Infirmary Square, Leicester, LE1 5WW, UK. jb234@le.ac.uk.
Monica Lakhanpaul
M LakhanpaulDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health Sciences, King's College London, Addison House, London, SE1 IUL, UK. m.lakhanpaul@ucl.ac.uk.
Alec Knight
A KnightKing's Improvement Science, Health Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, Addison House, London, SE1 IUL, UK. alec.knight@kcl.ac.uk.
Peter LittlejohnsDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health Sciences, King's College London, Addison House, London, SE1 IUL, UK. peter.littlejohns@kcl.ac.uk.
P Littlejohns

Funding

Department of Health DRF-2014-07-005
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical practice guidelines (CPGs) aim to improve patient care, but their use remains variable. We explored attitudes that influence CPG use amongst newly qualified doctors.

methodsA self-completed, anonymous questionnaire was sent to all Foundation Doctors in England and Wales between December 2012 and May 2013. We included questions designed to measure the 11 domains of the validated Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). We correlated these responses to questions assessing current and future intention to use CPGs.

resultsA total of 13,138 doctors were invited of which 1693 [corrected] (13 %) responded. 1,035 (62.5 %) reported regular CPG use with 575 (34.4 %) applying CPGs 2-3 times per week. A significant minority of 606 (36.6 %) declared an inability to critically appraise evidence. Despite efforts to design a questionnaire that captured the domains of the TDF, the domain scales created had low internal reliability. Using previously published studies and input from an expert statistical group, an alternative model was sought using exploratory factor analysis. Five alternative domains were identified. These were judged to represent: "confidence", "familiarity", "commitment and duty", "time" and "perceived benefits". Using regression analyses, the first three were noted as consistent predictors of both current and future intentions to use CPGs in decreasing strength order.

conclusionsIn this large survey of newly qualified doctors, "confidence", "familiarity" and "commitment and duty" were identified as domains that influence use of CPGs in frontline practice. Additionally, a significant minority were not confident in critically appraising evidence. Our findings suggest a number of approaches that may be taken to improve junior doctors' commitment to CPGs through processes that increase their confidence and familiarity in using CPGs. Despite limitations of a self-reported survey and potential non-response bias, these findings are from a large representative sample and a review of existing implementation strategies may be warranted based on these findings.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelCross-Sectional StudiesEnglandEvidence-Based PracticeGuideline AdherenceHumansMedical Staff, HospitalPractice Guidelines as TopicPractice Patterns, Physicians'Regression AnalysisSurveys and QuestionnairesWales

Identifiers

PMID26692267
PMCPMC4687363

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.