Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36609329›Full record

ReviewBMJ open2023

Barriers and enablers to implementing clinical practice guidelines in primary care: an overview of systematic reviews.

Tao Wang, Jing-Yu Benjamin Tan, Xian-Liang Liu, Isabella Zhao

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 150 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
150citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

150 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

90 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors.

Tao WangFaculty of Health, Charles Darwin University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9845-3988
Jing-Yu Benjamin TanFaculty of Health, Charles Darwin University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1609-6890
Xian-Liang LiuFaculty of Health, Charles Darwin University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Isabella ZhaoFaculty of Health, Charles Darwin University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia isabella.zhao@qut.edu.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo identify the barriers and enablers to implementing clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) recommendations in primary care and to provide recommendations that could facilitate the uptake of CPGs recommendations.

designAn overview of systematic reviews. DATA SOURCES: Nine electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Journals @Ovid Full Text, EMBase, JBI) and three online data sources for guidelines (Turning Research Into Practice, the National Guideline Clearinghouse and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) were searched until May 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Systematic reviews, meta-analyses or other types of systematic synthesis of quantitative, qualitative or mixed-methods studies on the topic of barriers and/or enablers for CPGs implementation in primary care were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two authors independently screened the studies and extracted the data using a predesigned data extraction form. The methodological quality of the included studies was appraised by using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Systematic Reviews and Research Syntheses. Content analysis was used to synthesise the data.

resultsTwelve systematic reviews were included. The methodological quality of the included reviews was generally robust. Six categories of barriers and enablers were identified, which include (1) political, social and culture factors, (2) institutional environment and resources factors, (3) guideline itself related factors, (4) healthcare provider-related factors, (5) patient-related factors and (6) behavioural regulation-related factors. The most commonly reported barriers within the above-mentioned categories were suboptimal healthcare networks and interprofessional communication pathways, time constraints, poor applicability of CPGs in real-world practice, lack of knowledge and skills, poor motivations and adherence, and inadequate reinforcement (eg, remuneration). Presence of technical support ('institutional environment and resources factors'), and timely education and training for both primary care providers (PCPs) ('healthcare provider-related factors') and patients ('patient-related factors') were the frequently reported enablers.

conclusionPolicy-driven strategies should be developed to motivate different levels of implementation activities, which include optimising resources allocations, promoting integrated care models, establishing well-coordinated multidisciplinary networks, increasing technical support, encouraging PCPs and patients' engagement in guideline development, standardising the reporting of guidelines, increasing education and training, and stimulating PCPs and patients' motivations. All the activities should be conducted by fully considering the social, cultural and community contexts to ensure the success and sustainability of CPGs implementation.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareHealth PersonnelHealth Facility EnvironmentHumansPrimary Health CareSystematic Reviews as TopicHealth policyOrganisation of health servicesPRIMARY CAREProtocols & guidelines

Identifiers

PMID36609329
PMCPMC9827241

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.