The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
When guidelines need guidance: considerations and strategies for improving the adoption of chronic disease evidence by general practitioners
Abstract
Objective This paper provides a review of key issues affecting the uptake of clinical guidelines by general practitioners (GPs) in Australia and internationally. Attention is given to the barriers that affect guideline uptake, the quality of guidelines and the dissemination of guidelines to GPs in practice settings. Method A comprehensive cross‐disciplinary literature review of peer‐reviewed journals was conducted between January and April 2008. The literature review was undertaken by three independent researchers from diverse disciplinary backgrounds. The review focused on studies that explored the barriers and issues associated with the use of guidelines in general practice and suggestions for more effective use. Results Pathways for clinicians to evaluate and use guidelines are still not clear. The majority of contemporary literature promotes linear ‘uptake’ and ‘accessibility’ models for clinical guidelines that may not attend to more complex issues associated with GPs' ways of practising on a daily basis. There are also few clear guidelines for GPs on how to ‘adapt’ guidelines for local and individual patient circumstances. Conclusions Peak organizations such as General Practice Queensland in Australia can have a significant role in helping GPs to evaluate and use clinical guidelines. The suggested approach emphasizes the need for such peak bodies to promote respect for practitioner experience, interpretation and patient insight.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Conversely, lack of effective leadership to advocate change, set priorities or manage the implementation process; and changes in leadership were presented as barriers [55, 67–69].”
From Achieving change in primary care—causes of the evidence to practice gap: systematic reviews of reviews (2015) · cites this paper as [68]
In the citing paper
“Competing priorities [42, 57, 59, 62, 63, 70, 82], lack of motivation [31, 39, 42, 57, 68, 81] and low awareness of the intervention [31, 35, 38, 39, 43, 44, 68, 75, 80, 81] were shown to impede implementation.”
From Achieving change in primary care—causes of the evidence to practice gap: systematic reviews of reviews (2015) · cites this paper as [68]
In the citing paper
“Resistance to change caused by disagreement with the evidence, negative beliefs about the usefulness or added value of the intervention or belief that the intervention was not part of their role were commonly described as a barrier to implementation [3, 14, 35, 41, 67–70, 76, 77, 80].”
From Achieving change in primary care—causes of the evidence to practice gap: systematic reviews of reviews (2015) · cites this paper as [68]
In the citing paper
“interventions with good definitional clarity, such as well-organised guidelines with well-defined measurable actions that were based on clear strong recommendations, promoted implementation [35, 68].”
From Achieving change in primary care—causes of the evidence to practice gap: systematic reviews of reviews (2015) · cites this paper as [68]
In the citing paper
“interventions that demonstrated clear and consistent clinical evidence of benefit [3, 16, 34, 35, 51, 55, 56, 68, 74, 89] or good applicability relevant to setting [3, 35, 68] were shown to facilitate implementation.”
From Achieving change in primary care—causes of the evidence to practice gap: systematic reviews of reviews (2015) · cites this paper as [68]
Citations
Cites
A rational model for assessing and evaluating complex interventions in health care
May, C. (2006) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/1472-6963-6-86 · Cited by 447
Eccles, M. (2002) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.325.7370.941 · Cited by 354 · cited 4×
“Eccles et al. (2002) found practitioners draw on information in highly”
BackgroundInfluential
Research works printed but not linked: 40
- 10.1016/S1386-5056(01)00127-7 · DOI
- 10.1056/NEJMsb042458 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.pcrj.2005.12.001 · DOI
- 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2004.tb05945.x · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1445-5994.2006.01018.x · DOI
- Kesselring J., 2004, Neurorehabilitation in multiple sclerosis: what is the evidence‐base?, Journal of Neurology, 51, iv25
- 10.1046/j.1365-2753.2003.00376.x · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jacc.2003.12.043 · DOI
- 10.1377/hlthaff.24.1.174 · DOI
- 10.2337/diacare.25.11.1952 · DOI
- 10.1136/bmj.326.7384.314 · DOI
- 10.1136/jamia.2000.0070488 · DOI
- 10.1001/jama.281.20.1900 · DOI
- 10.1001/archinte.161.1.69 · DOI
- 10.1016/S1070-3241(16)30155-9 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.7326/0003-4819-139-6-200309160-00013 · DOI
- Davis D., 1997, A systematic review of theoretic concepts, practical experience and research evidence in the adoption of clinical practice guidelines, Canadian Medical Association Journal, 157, 408
- Fox R., 1989, Changing and Learning in the Lives of Physicians
- Falzer P. R., 2008, Incorporating clinical guidelines through clinician decision‐making, Implementation Science, 3
- 10.1016/S0277-9536(01)00309-4 · DOI
- 10.3122/jabfm.18.6.541 · DOI
- 10.1136/bmj.327.7405.33 · DOI
- Robinson P., 2000, What do GPs need to know? The use of knowledge in general practice consultations, British Journal of General Practice, 50, 56
- Schon D. A., 1983, The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action
- Wenger E., 1991, Communities for Practice: Learning as a Social System
- Kilpatrick S. Barrett M.&Jones T.(2003)Defining learning communities. Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE) Conference Papers. Available at:http://www.aare.edu.au/03pap/jon03441.pdf(last accessed 13 April 2008).
- Moore A., 2000, Learning communities, International Journal of Adult and Vocational Learning, 1, 1
- Norman C., 2006, Knowledge transfer & exchange: through social networks – building foundations for a community of practice within tobacco control, Implementation Science, 1
- 10.1177/108648229800300303 · DOI · Paper page
- Wallace E., 2006, Communities of practice, Information Outlook, 10, 27
- 10.1111/j.1467-8527.2007.00383.x · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1552-6909.2002.tb00086.x · DOI
- Translational Research Working Group, 2007, Transforming Translation: Harnessing Discovery for Patient and Public Benefit
- 10.1111/1468-0009.00206 · DOI · Paper page
- Gladwell M., 1999, The science of the sleeper: how the information age could blow away the block‐buster, The New Yorker, 48
- 10.1016/S0277-9536(01)00094-6 · DOI
- 10.1177/0193841X03256298 · DOI
- 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2002.tb04920.x · DOI
- Geneau R., 2008, Understanding the work of general practitioners: a social science perspective on the context of medical decision making in primary care, BMC Family Practice, 9
- Chandler C. I. R., 2008, Guidelines and mindlines: why do clinical staff over‐diagnose malaria in Tanzania? A qualitative study, Malaria Journal, 7
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Lau, R., Stevenson, F., Ong, B. N., Dziedzic, K., Treweek, S., Eldridge, S., Everitt, H., Kennedy, A., Qureshi, N., Rogers, A., et al. (2015) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0396-4 · Cited by 533
“Implementability Complexity of implementation [31, 57, 68] B: Too complex project organisation [57] F: Do not require a great deal of time or effort to implement [68] √ √ √”
BackgroundInfluential
Metadata
- Authors
- Kendall, E., Sunderland, N., Muenchberger, H., & Armstrong, K.
- Affiliations
- Griffith University (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Kendall, Elizabeth
- Venue
- Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2009-12
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1082-1090
- ISSN
- 1356-1294 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2753
- OpenAlex
- W2155918114
- Cited by
- 43
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 3.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Keywords
- general practitioners, chronic disease management, barriers to guideline use, guideline quality, guideline dissemination, guideline adaptation, practitioner experiences, evidence-based practice
- MeSH terms
- Attitude of Health Personnel, Australia, Chronic Disease, Humans, Physicians, Family, Review Literature as Topic, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Evidence-Based Medicine, Guideline Adherence
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