Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32205377›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2020

Clinicians' attitudes to oncology clinical practice guidelines and the barriers and facilitators to adherence: a mixed methods study protocol.

Mia Bierbaum, Jeffrey Braithwaite, Gaston Arnolda, Geoffrey P Delaney, Winston Liauw, Richard Kefford, Yvonne Tran, Bróna Nic Giolla Easpaig, Frances Rapport

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

9 authors.

Mia BierbaumAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia mia.bierbaum@hdr.mq.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-7037-4708
Jeffrey BraithwaiteAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0296-4957
Gaston ArnoldaAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4948-7633
Geoffrey P DelaneyCentre for Research Excellence in Implementation Science in Oncology, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1829-396X
Winston LiauwCentre for Research Excellence in Implementation Science in Oncology, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Richard KeffordCentre for Research Excellence in Implementation Science in Oncology, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9251-9229
Yvonne TranAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1741-4205
Bróna Nic Giolla EaspaigAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6787-056X
Frances RapportAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4428-2826

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionClinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are designed to reduce inappropriate clinical variation and improve the quality of care. Barriers to CPGs include a lack of awareness of CPGs, access to them, time pressures and concerns regarding the evidence underpinning CPG development, implementation and dissemination. The objectives of this study are to assess clinicians' attitudes to CPGs for cancer treatment and the perceived barriers to and facilitators of CPG adherence in order to inform the implementation of cancer treatment CPGs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A mixed methods study will be conducted using a three-phase, sequential design, with each phase informing the next. In phase 1, a qualitative study using recorded interviews will investigate clinicians' attitudes to CPGs for cancer treatment and perceptions of barriers and facilitators to CPG adherence (n=30); interview transcripts will be analysed thematically. In phase 2, a survey will quantify the frequency of attitudes, barriers and facilitators identified in phase 1, in a broader clinical sample (n=200). In phase 3, a workshop forum will be held to facilitate discussions examining the implications of phase 1 and 2 findings for cancer CPG implementation strategies (n=40) leading to recommendations for improvements to practice. The workshop discussion will be recorded, and the transcript will be analysed thematically. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has received ethics approval in New South Wales, Australia (2019/ETH11722, #52019568810127). Study findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and will form part of a doctoral thesis and be presented at national and international conferences.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelGuideline AdherencePhysiciansPractice Guidelines as TopicHumansInterviews as TopicQualitative ResearchQuality of Health CareSurveys and Questionnairesoncologyprotocols & guidelinesquality in health care

Identifiers

PMID32205377
PMCPMC7103843

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.