Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39415487›Full record

SynthesisJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2025

Barriers and facilitators of adherence to clinical practice guidelines in Germany-A systematic review.

Eni Shehu, Charlotte M Kugler, Niklas Schäfer, Diane Rosen, Corinna Schaefer, Thomas Kötter, Markus Follmann, Dawid Pieper

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

8 authors.

Eni ShehuBrandenburg Medical School (Theodor Fontane), Institute for Health Services and Health Systems Research, Faculty of Health Sciences Brandenburg, Rüdersdorf, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9161-4010
Charlotte M KuglerBrandenburg Medical School (Theodor Fontane), Institute for Health Services and Health Systems Research, Faculty of Health Sciences Brandenburg, Rüdersdorf, Germany.
Niklas SchäferBrandenburg Medical School (Theodor Fontane), Neuruppin, Germany.
Diane RosenBrandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, JBI Affiliated Group EBB, Brandenburg an der Havel, Germany.
Corinna SchaeferGerman Agency for Quality in Medicine, Berlin, Germany.
Thomas KötterInstitute of Family Medicine, University Medical Centre Schleswig-Holstein, Lübeck, Germany.
Markus FollmannGerman Guideline Program in Oncology, German Cancer Society, Berlin, Germany.
Dawid PieperBrandenburg Medical School (Theodor Fontane), Institute for Health Services and Health Systems Research, Faculty of Health Sciences Brandenburg, Rüdersdorf, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

rationaleClinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) represent evidence-based tools designed to assist healthcare practitioners and patients in decisions in clinical practice. Evidence supports the clinical benefits of adhering to CPGs. However, their successful implementation and adherence in clinical settings often encounter challenges. AIMS AND

objectivesThis systematic review aimed to explore barriers and facilitators influencing adherence to CPGs in Germany.

methodThe protocol of this study was registered in the Open Science Framework (OSF) registry (DOI: 10.17605/OSF. IO/GMFUB). In November 2022 we searched on PubMed and Embase for primary studies employing qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods approaches that focus on barriers or facilitators to CPGs adherence in the Germany. Two reviewers independently screened articles, extracted data, and evaluated the quality of the studies. The collected data on barriers and facilitators of CPG adherence were systematically categorized and analyzed using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF).

resultsA total of 24 studies were included, mainly focusing on adherence to national CPGs. This review introduces a new domain, guideline characteristics, reflecting the need to address barriers and facilitators to CPG development, implementation, dissemination and format, which couldn't be encompassed within the existing 14 domains of TDF framework. Among healthcare professionals, the most frequently reported influencing factors were related to the environmental context and resources (encompassing aspects such as employer support for CPG utilization), the CPG development and dissemination process (including layout, wording, and interactive tools) and beliefs about consequences (such as contradictions with practical experience). Knowledge (knowledge about the content of CPGs, awareness about published CPGs), primarily as a barrier, and reinforcement facilitators (notably financial support), were also frequently reported.

conclusionThe findings revealed multilevel factors contributing to CPG adherence, with environmental context and resources emerging as the most frequently reported considerations. This systematic review offer holistic insights into the barriers and facilitators of CPG adherence in Germany. The results contribute to a better understanding of the topic and serve as a resource for developing targeted strategies to enhance CPG adherence and implementation within the German healthcare system.

Indexed as

Guideline AdherenceHealth PersonnelPractice Guidelines as TopicGermanyHumansclinical practice guidelineenabling factorsevidence‐based medicineguideline adherencehealth services researchsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID39415487
PMCPMC12021332

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.