The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Do Practice Guidelines Guide Practice?
Abstract
Guidelines for medical practice can contribute to improved care only if they succeed in moving actual practice closer to the behaviors the guidelines recommend. To assess the effect of such guidelines, we surveyed hospitals and obstetricians in Ontario before and after the release of a widely distributed and nationally endorsed consensus statement recommending decreases in the use of cesarean sections. These surveys, along with discharge data from hospitals reflecting actual practice, revealed that most obstetricians (87 to 94 percent) were aware of the guidelines and that most (82.5 to 85 percent) agreed with them. Attitudes toward the use of cesarean section were congruent with the recommendations even before their release. One third of the hospitals and obstetricians reported changing their practice as a consequence of the guidelines, and obstetricians reported rates of cesarean section in women with a previous cesarean section that were significantly reduced, in keeping with the recommendations (from 72.2 percent to 61.1 percent; P less than 0.01). The surveys also showed, however, that knowledge of the content of the recommendations was poor (67 percent correct responses). Furthermore, data on actual practice after the publication of the guidelines showed that the rates of cesarean section were 15 to 49 percent higher than the rates reported by obstetricians, and they showed only a slight change from the previous upward trend. We conclude that guidelines for practice may predispose physicians to consider changing their behavior, but that unless there are other incentives or the removal of disincentives, guidelines may be unlikely to effect rapid change in actual practice. We believe that incentives should operate at the local level, although they may include system-wide economic changes.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Why Don't Physicians Follow Clinical Practice Guidelines?: A Framework for Improvement
Cabana, M. D., Rand, C. S., Powe, N. R., Wu, A. W., Wilson, M. H., Abboud, P.-A. C., & Rubin, H. R. (1999) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.282.15.1458 · Cited by 6,677
Bero, L. A., Grilli, R., Grimshaw, J. M., Harvey, E., Oxman, A. D., & Thomson, M. A. (1998) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.317.7156.465 · Cited by 2,396
Managing Clinical Knowledge for Health Care Improvement
Balas, E. A., & Boren, S. A. (2000) · Yearbook of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1055/s-0038-1637943 · Cited by 1,479
Phillips, L. S., Branch, W. T., Cook, C. B., Doyle, J. P., El-Kebbi, I. M., Gallina, D. L., Miller, C. D., Ziemer, D. C., & Barnes, C. S. (2001) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-135-9-200111060-00012 · Cited by 1,370
(1997) · Europe PMC (PubMed Central) · Cited by 1,226
Metadata
- Authors
- Lomas, J., Anderson, G. M., Domnick-Pierre, K., Vayda, E., Enkin, M. W., & Hannah, W. J.
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 1989-11-09
- Volume
- 321
- Issue
- 19
- Pages
- 1306-1311
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- OpenAlex
- W2312807852
- Cited by
- 1,234
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 57.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Do Practice Guidelines Guide Practice? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm198911093211906
- The paper
- Lomas, J., Anderson, G. M., Domnick-Pierre, K., Vayda, E., Enkin, M. W., & Hannah, W. J. (1989). Do Practice Guidelines Guide Practice? New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm198911093211906
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.