Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40070372›Full record

ArticleClinical and public health guidelines2025

Dissemination strategies of clinical practice guidelines-mixed methods evidence synthesis protocol.

Sumanth Kumbargere Nagraj, Tandekile Lubelwana Hafver, Ameer Hohlfeld, Emmanuel Effa, Denny Mabetha, Gertrude Kunje, Yan Jiao Shen, Carlos Zaror, Suzgika Lakudzala, Talitha Mpando and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical and public health guidelines, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

14 authors.

Sumanth Kumbargere NagrajMAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation, Lovisenberg gata, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0003-1798-3245
Tandekile Lubelwana HafverMAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation, Lovisenberg gata, Oslo, Norway.
Ameer HohlfeldCentre for Evidence-Based Health Care, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa.
Emmanuel EffaInternal Medicine at the College of Medical Sciences, University of Calabar, Calabar, Nigeria.
Denny MabethaSouth African Medical Research Council, Health Systems Research Unit, Cape Town, South Africa.
Gertrude KunjeLilongwe University, Lilongwe, Malawi.
Yan Jiao ShenHealth Management Center, General Practice Medical Center, Medical Device Regulatory Research and Evaluation Center, Chinese Evidence-Based Medicine Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Carlos ZarorCenter for Research in Epidemiology, Economics and Oral Public Health (CIEESPO), Faculty of Dentistry, Universidad de La Frontera, Temuco, Chile.ORCID 0000-0001-6942-6956
Suzgika LakudzalaKamuzu University of Health Sciences, Blantyre, Malawi.
Talitha MpandoKamuzu University of Health Sciences, Blantyre, Malawi.
Stijn van de VeldeMAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation, Lovisenberg gata, Oslo, Norway.
Thomas AgoritsasMAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation, Lovisenberg gata, Oslo, Norway.
Nicolas DelvauxKatholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Per Olav VandvikMAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation, Lovisenberg gata, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

European & Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP) RIA2020S-3303
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are shared through various dissemination strategies using a range of dissemination products and channels. However, users may have different needs for accessing and understanding them. Patients and carers from low- and middle-income countries might face challenges in accessing CPGs such as inadequate systems for printed book distribution and insufficient and substandard photocopies. Many organizations offer lengthy documents, but busy healthcare workers may prefer shorter, digital versions. Digital CPGs can be sent through different channels such as email, newsletters, or social media. How users feel about these products (e.g., clinical protocol, educational material or decision aids) and how it affects the usage of CPGs is not well understood. In addition to these issues, most of the previous systematic reviews on this topic have clubbed the dissemination strategies along with the adoption of recommendations or implementation aspects. There is a need for evidence on the existing dissemination strategies disentangled from the implementation aspects. We aim to conduct a mixed-methods systematic review to identify documented dissemination strategies for CPGs, barriers and facilitators to access such strategies and the expectations and needs of end users regarding dissemination needs. We will search literature from MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, Epistemonikos, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and Medical Guidelines Clearing house. We will critically appraise all the included studies using appropriate tools based on the study design. We will use manifest content analysis to identify documented dissemination strategies and latent content analysis to understand the barriers, facilitators, preferences of end-users. We intend to follow the convergent matrix model approach for this mixed methods evidence synthesis. We anticipate that this mixed-methods systematic review will highlight the various strategies of dissemination of CPGs and the associated barriers and facilitators.

Indexed as

accessbarrierchannelclinical practice guidelinesdisseminationfacilitatorproduct

Identifiers

PMID40070372
PMCPMC7617474

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.