Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31519667›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Barriers and enablers for the implementation of clinical practice guidelines in China: a mixed-method study.

Yinghui Jin, Zimeng Li, Fei Han, Di Huang, Qiao Huang, Yue Cao, Hong Weng, Xian-Tao Zeng, Xinghuan Wang, Hong-Cai Shang

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

10 authors.

Yinghui JinCenter for Evidence-Based and Translational Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.
Zimeng LiGraduate School, Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Tianjin, China.
Fei HanXuan Wu Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital, Beijing, China.
Di HuangCenter for Evidence-Based and Translational Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.
Qiao HuangCenter for Evidence-Based and Translational Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.
Yue CaoCenter for Evidence-Based and Translational Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.
Hong WengCenter for Evidence-Based and Translational Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.
Xian-Tao ZengCenter for Evidence-Based and Translational Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.
Xinghuan WangCenter for Evidence-Based and Translational Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China shanghongcai0301@163.com wangxinghuan1965@163.com.
Hong-Cai ShangKey Laboratory of Chinese Internal Medicine of Ministry of Education and Beijing, Dongzhimen Hospital, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China shanghongcai0301@163.com wangxinghuan1965@163.com.ORCID 0000-0003-4725-9581

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe aim of this study was to explore perspectives and reasoning of medical staff from Class A tertiary hospitals about the factors hindering and facilitating the uptake and use of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) during medical procedures.

designMixed-method research study to collect and analyse both quantitative and qualitative data.

settingClass A tertiary hospitals in China.

participantsThe inclusion criteria for the questionnaire survey and qualitative research were (1) medical practitioners and (2) years of practice: above 5 years in a tertiary hospital.

methodsQuestionnaires were distributed to medical staff in 11 cities to collect quantitative data. Frequency and ranking of barriers and enablers were analysed. Spearman correlations were computed to explore the correlation between years of practice, professional title ranking and educational background with self-reported guideline adherence. Using a constructivist grounded theory method, qualitative data were generated via in-depth face-to-face interviews with Chinese medical practitioners.

resultsA total of 359 medical practitioners were surveyed and 32 medical practitioners interviewed in 11 cities. Higher frequency and higher ranking of barriers all converged on 'lack of access', 'less convenient', 'lack of applicability' and 'lack of evidence from Chinese sample'. Higher frequency and higher ranking of enablers converged on 'Short formats presentation', 'Utilisation of various media', 'Information visualisation' and 'Linking to patient electronic medical records'. There were no relationships between characteristics of respondents with self-reported adherence. This research produced a theoretical understanding of the experience of medical practitioners when using guidelines. Themes identified were as follows: existing intrinsic flaws in guidelines, deficient or incomplete system mechanism and being ambiguous.

conclusionOur findings provide a comprehensive and culturally sensitive perspective in understanding guideline implementation in China. Strategies addressing those barriers should be further discussed and researched in the future.

Indexed as

Guideline AdherenceHealth PersonnelPractice Patterns, Physicians'AdultChinaFemaleFocus GroupsHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchSurveys and Questionnairesadherencebarriersclinical practice guidelineimplementation

Identifiers

PMID31519667
PMCPMC6747634

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.