Cited by 877Clinical practice guidelines implementationHealth Sciences Research and EducationHealth Policy Implementation Science

Attributes of clinical guidelines that influence use of guidelines in general practice: observational study

Open access
Grol, Richard, Dalhuijsen, Johannes, Thomas, Siep, Veld, Cees in ‘t, Rutten, Guy, Mokkink, Henk·1998·BMJ

Abstract

Objective: To determine which attributes of clinical practice guidelines influence the use of guidelines in decision making in clinical practice.. Design: Observational study relating the use of 47 different recommendations from 10 national clinical guidelines to 12 different attributes of clinical guidelines—for example, evidence based, controversial, concrete. Setting: General practice in the Netherlands. Subjects: 61 general practitioners who made 12 880 decisions in their contacts with patients. Main outcome measures: Compliance of decisions with clinical guidelines according to the attribute of the guideline. Results: Recommendations were followed in, on average, 61% (7915/12 880) of the decisions. Controversial recommendations were followed in 35% (886/2497) of decisions and non-controversial recommendations in 68% (7029/10 383) of decisions. Vague and non-specific recommendations were followed in 36% (826/2280) of decisions and clear recommendations in 67% (7089/10 600) of decisions. Recommendations that demanded a change in existing practice routines were followed in 44% (1278/2912) of decisions and those that did not in 67% (6637/9968) of decisions. Evidence based recommendations were used more than recommendations for practice that were not based on research evidence (71% (2745/3841) v 57% (5170/9039)). Conclusions: People and organisations setting evidence based clinical practice guidelines should take into account some of the other important attributes of effective recommendations for clinical practice.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.317.7162.858

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • A study of guidelines intended for General Practitioners found that detailed and clear recommendations were almost twice as likely to be followed as vague and non-specific recommendations.

    “a study of guidelines intended for General Practitioners (GPs) found that detailed and clear recommendations were almost twice as likely to be followed as vague and non-specific recommendations [23].”

    From A conceptual framework for implementation fidelity (2007) · cites this paper as [23]

  • The complexity of clinical practice recommendations and the degree to which benefits can readily be observed may play an important role in A&F effectiveness.

    “The complexity of clinical practice recommendations and the degree to which benefits can readily be observed may play an important role [21,38-40].”
  • Guidelines using specific and active language lead to greater adherence than guidelines using vague or nonspecific phrasing.

    “Guidelines using specific and active language have been shown to lead to greater adherence than guidelines using vague or nonspecific phrasing [8].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Rogers E. Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press, 1983.
  2. Kahan J, Kanouse D, Winkler J. Stylistic variations in NIH Consensus statements 1979-1983. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1988;4:289-304.
  3. Leape L. Practice guidelines and standards. Qual Rev Bull 1990;17:42-9.
  4. Grol R. Beliefs and evidence in changing clinical practice. BMJ 1997;315:418-21.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Grol, R., Dalhuijsen, J., Thomas, S., Veld, C. I. ‘., Rutten, G., & Mokkink, H.
Affiliations
  • Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
  • Dutch College of General Practitioners (NL)
Corresponding author
Grol, Richard
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1998-09-26
Volume
317
Issue
7162
Pages
858.1-861
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2113241235
Cited by
877
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 35 · 2013: 35 · 2012: 51
FWCI
32.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (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
guideline adherence, general practitioners, clinical decision-making, evidence-based recommendations, practice change, primary care
MeSH terms
Decision Making, Family Practice, Humans, Netherlands, Professional Practice, Practice Guidelines as Topic, 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