ArticleJournal of clinical epidemiology2022
Awareness, value and use of the Australian living guidelines for the clinical care of people with COVID-19: an impact evaluation.
Article in Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Assessing the Impact of Evidence-Based Mental Health Guidance During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Systematic Review and Qualitative Evaluation.JMIR mental health · 2023Pooled it
- Time for an Update: The Currency of Clinical Guidelines in Australia-A Cross-Sectional Analysis.The Medical journal of Australia · 2026Article
- Paracetamol in Pregnancy: Uncertain Evidence, Certain Consequences.The Medical journal of Australia · 2026Article
- "You've just got to have it ready for when they're ready" - Australian policymakers' perceptions of living evidence synthesis and its opportunity to support health policy.Health research policy and systems · 2025Article
- Addressing evidence needs during health crises in the province of Quebec (Canada): a proposed action plan for rapid evidence synthesis.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Effectiveness of dissemination strategies of maternal clinical guidelines: A narrative review.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2024Review
- Living methods for living guidelines: Changes to evidence synthesis methods in the Australian National Clinical Evidence Taskforce COVID-19 living guidelines.Clinical and public health guidelines · 2024Article
- Designing, refining and reflecting on 3 years of daily evidence surveillance for Australia's living national COVID-19 guidelines.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2024Article
- Weekly updating of guideline recommendations was feasible: the Australian National COVID-19 clinical evidence Taskforce.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2023Article
- Saving millions of lives but some resources squandered: emerging lessons from health research system pandemic achievements and challenges.Health research policy and systems · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveThe Australian National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce is developing living, evidence-based, national guidelines for treatment of people with COVID-19. These living guidelines are updated each week. We undertook an impact evaluation to understand the extent to which health professionals providing treatment to people with COVID 19 were aware of, valued and used the guidelines, and the factors that enabled or hampered this.
methodsA mixed methods approach was used for the evaluation. Surveys were conducted to collect both quantitative and qualitative data and were supplemented with qualitative interviews. Australian healthcare practitioners potentially providing care to individuals with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were invited to participate. Data were collected on guideline awareness, relevance, ease of use, trustworthiness, value, importance of updating, use, and strengths and opportunities for improvement.
resultsA total of 287 people completed the surveys and 10 interviews were conducted during November 2020. Awareness of the work of the Taskforce was high and the vast majority of respondents reported that the guidelines were very or extremely relevant, easy to use, trustworthy and valuable. More than 50% of respondents had used the guidelines to support their own clinical decision-making; and 30% were aware of other examples of the guidelines being used. Qualitative data revealed that amongst an overwhelming morass of evidence and opinions during the COVID-19 pandemic, the guidelines have been a reliable, united source of evidence-based advice; participants felt the guidelines built confidence and provided reassurance in clinical decision-making. Opportunities to improve awareness and accessibility to the guidelines were also explored.
conclusionsAs of June 2021, the guidelines have been published and updated more than 40 times, include more than 140 recommendations and are being used to inform clinical decisions. The findings of this impact evaluation will be used to improve processes and outputs of the Taskforce and guidelines project, and to inform future living guideline projects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.