ArticleBMJ open2026
Insights into clinician utilisation and perceptions of the Paediatric Improvement Collaborative Clinical Practice Guidelines: a mixed-methods study.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to explore perceptions of the Paediatric Improvement Collaborative's (PIC's) Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) among clinicians, with a focus on awareness, frequency of use, applicability and areas for improvement. DESIGN,
settingCross-sectional online survey and semi-structured interviews.
participantsClinicians working in all Australian states and territories. Recruitment was via non-probability convenience sampling. Invitations to participate in the online survey were posted on national- and state-level paediatric organisations, networks and groups. Survey participants could express interest in taking part in a follow-up online interview.
resultsA total of 466 clinicians, including consultants/specialists (46.1%), specialists in training (residents/registrars: 20.4%), nurses (17.8%), allied health professionals (4.7%) and general practitioners (3.6%) participated in the survey. Findings indicated a high level of usage, with two-thirds of participants (63.9%) using the guidelines weekly. Most participants (91.8%) deemed the CPGs highly applicable to their practice settings, and over half (57.9%) had referred to more than 10 different PIC CPGs in the past month. Patterns of use reflected experience, seniority and scope of practice, with utilisation significantly higher among specialists in training, those working in emergency settings and those with less practising experience. Ten clinicians were interviewed to gain deeper insights, reinforcing that PIC CPGs serve multiple purposes, such as to check practice and for self-learning, for teaching more junior staff, and to reinforce treatment decisions with parents and patients. The guidelines were noted as being useful for all members of the multidisciplinary team in providing consistent language and uniform care. Key areas for improvement included enhancing accessibility in time-pressured environments, such as incorporating human factors-based navigation features and standardised layouts, and integrating additional tools and localised referral information.
conclusionsPIC CPGs are viewed as a source of credible, evidence-based information that was valued across medical, nursing and allied health professionals.
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.