Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29879984›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2018

How do clinicians use implementation tools to apply breast cancer screening guidelines to practice?

Heather Armson, Stefanie Roder, Tom Elmslie, Sobia Khan, Sharon E Straus

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Attitudes of optometrists towards artificial intelligence for the diagnosis of retinal disease: A cross-sectional mail-out survey.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2022
    Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

5 authors.

Heather ArmsonDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada. armson@ucalgary.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-7147-6749
Stefanie RoderThe Foundation for Medical Practice Education, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Tom ElmslieThe Foundation for Medical Practice Education, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Sobia KhanKnowledge Translation Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Sharon E StrausKnowledge Translation Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.

Funding

CIHR KAL-122167
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImplementation tools (iTools) may enhance uptake of guidelines. However, little evidence exists on their use by primary care clinicians. This study explored which iTools clinicians used and how often; how satisfied clinicians were with the tools; whether tool use was associated with practice changes; and identified mediators for practice change(s) related to breast cancer screening (BCS).

methodsCanadian primary care providers who are members of the Practice-Based Small Group Learning Program (n = 1464) were invited to participate in this mixed methods study. An educational module was discussed in a small group learning context, and data collection included an on-line survey, practice reflection tools (PRTs), and interviews. The module included both the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care revised guideline on BCS and iTools for clinician and/or patient use. After discussing the module and at 3 months, participants completed PRTs identifying their planned practice change(s) and documenting implementation outcome(s). Use of the iTools was explored via online survey and individual interviews.

resultsSeventy participants agreed to participate. Of these, 48 participated in the online survey, 43 completed PRTs and 14 were interviewed. Most survey participants (77%) reported using at least one of seven tools available for implementing BCS guideline. Of these (78%) reported using more than one tool. Almost all participants used tools for clinicians (92%) and 62% also used tools for patients. As more tools were used, more practice changes were reported on the survey and PRTs. Interviews provided additional findings. Once information from an iTool was internalized, there was no further need for the tool. Participants did not use tools (23%) due to disagreements with the BCS guideline, patients' expectations, and/or experiences with diagnosis of breast cancer.

conclusionThis study found that clinicians use tools to implement practice changes related to BCS guideline. Tools developed for clinicians were used to understand and consolidate the recommendations before tools to be used with patients were employed to promote decision-making. Mediating factors that impacted tool use confirmed previous research. Finally, use of some iTools decreased over time because information was internalized.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicBreast NeoplasmsBritish ColumbiaDecision Support TechniquesEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansNova ScotiaOntarioPreventive MedicinePrimary Health CareBreast cancer screeningClinical practice guidelinesGuideline implementationImplementation strategyImplementation tools

Identifiers

PMID29879984
PMCPMC5992659

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.