ArticleBMC primary care2023
Effective web-based clinical practice guidelines resources: recommendations from a mixed methods usability study.
Article in BMC primary care, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dissemination strategies of clinical practice guidelines-mixed methods evidence synthesis protocol.Clinical and public health guidelines · 2025Article
- How Can We Make Information on Equity in Clinical Guidelines More Usable for Clinicians? A Case Study Methodology of General Practitioners.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2025Article
- Exploring the Role of Guidelines in Contributing to Medication Errors: A Descriptive Analysis of National Patient Safety Incident Data.Drug safety · 2024Article
- The Reasons for the Low Uptake of New Antidiabetic Drugs with Cardiovascular Effects-A Family Doctor Perspective.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- A Web-Based Dyadic Intervention to Manage Psychoneurological Symptoms for Patients With Colorectal Cancer and Their Caregivers: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study.JMIR research protocols · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical practice guidelines (CPG) are an important knowledge translation resource to help clinicians stay up to date about relevant clinical knowledge. Effective communication of guidelines, including format, facilitates its implementation. Despite the digitalization of healthcare, there is little literature to guide CPG website creation for effective dissemination and implementation. Our aim was to assess the effectiveness of the content and format of the Diabetes Canada CPG website, and use our results to inform recommendations for other CPG websites.
methodsFourteen clinicians (family physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and dieticians) in diabetes care across Canada participated in this mixed-methods study (questionnaires, usability testing and interviews). Participants "thought-aloud" while completing eight usability tasks on the CPG website. Outcomes included task success rate, completion time, click per tasks, resource used, paths, search attempts and success rate, and error types. Participants were then interviewed.
resultsThe Diabetes Canada CPG website was found to be usable. Participants had a high task success rate of 79% for all tasks and used 144 (standard deviation (SD) = 152) seconds and 4.6 (SD = 3.9) clicks per task. Interactive tools were most frequently used compared to full guidelines and static tools. Misinterpretation accounted for 48% of usability errors. Participants overall found the website intuitive, with effective content and design elements.
conclusionDifferent versions of CPG information (e.g. interactive tools, quick reference guide, static tools) can help answer clinical questions more quickly. Effective web design should be assessed during CPG website creation for effective guideline dissemination and implementation.
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.