The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Changing clinical behaviour by making guidelines specific
Open accessAbstract
Efforts to get doctors to follow guidelines have overlooked the importance of clear and concise recommendationsThe problems of getting people to act on evidence based guidelines are widely recognised. 1 An overview of 41 systematic reviews found that the most promising approach was to use a variety of interventions including audit and feedback, reminders, and educational outreach.1 The effective interventions often involved complicated procedures and were always an addition to the provision of guidelines.None of the studies used the simplest intervention-that is, changing the wording of the guidelines.We examine the importance of precise behavioural recommendations and suggest how some current guidelines could be improved.
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
Cites
Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans.
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.54.7.493 · Cited by 5,478
The National Institute for Clinical Excellence
(2001) · Nursing Management · doi:10.7748/nm.8.2.39.s15 · Cited by 3,876
(2001) · PubMed · Cited by 1,709
Behavior therapy: Appraisal and status.
Franks, C. M. (1969) · McGraw-Hill eBooks · Cited by 1,077
Grol, R., Dalhuijsen, J., Thomas, S., Veld, C. I. ‘., Rutten, G., & Mokkink, H. (1998) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.317.7162.858 · Cited by 877
Personal paper: Beliefs and evidence in changing clinical practice
Grol, R. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7105.418 · Cited by 826
Cambridge Handbook of Psychology, Health and Medicine
(2001) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511543579 · Cited by 393
Bennett, J., & Bridger, P. (1992) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.305.6864.1294-a · Cited by 308
Eccles, M., Steen, N., Grimshaw, J., Thomas, L., McNamee, P., Soutter, J., Wilsdon, J., Matowe, L., Needham, G., Gilbert, F., et al. (2001) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(00)04564-5 · Cited by 222
Crossfield, T. (1989) · Nursing Management · doi:10.7748/nm.9.3.8.s5 · Cited by 203
Cited by
Michie, S., Richardson, M., Johnston, M., Abraham, C., Francis, J., Hardeman, W., Eccles, M. P., Cane, J., & Wood, C. E. (2013) · Annals of Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1007/s12160-013-9486-6 · Cited by 7,629
Self-citationMaking psychological theory useful for implementing evidence based practice: a consensus approach
Michie, S. (2005) · Quality and Safety in Health Care · doi:10.1136/qshc.2004.011155 · Cited by 3,440
Self-citationSystematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care
Tacconelli, E. (2010) · The Lancet Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1016/s1473-3099(10)70065-7 · Cited by 3,245
Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust
Committee on Standards for Developing Trustworthy Clinical Practice Guidelines, Board on Health Care Services, & Institute of Medicine (2011) · National Academies Press eBooks · doi:10.17226/13058 · Cited by 3,081
Risk prediction models: II. External validation, model updating, and impact assessment
Moons, K. G. M., Kengne, A. P., Grobbee, D. E., Royston, P., Vergouwe, Y., Altman, D. G., & Woodward, M. (2012) · Heart · doi:10.1136/heartjnl-2011-301247 · Cited by 1,195
Metadata
- Authors
- Michie, S., & Johnston, M.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2004-02-05
- Volume
- 328
- Issue
- 7435
- Pages
- 343-345
- ISSN
- 1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- OpenAlex
- W2166438970
- Cited by
- 309
- References
- 12
- FWCI
- 18.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Changing clinical behaviour by making guidelines specific. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.328.7435.343
- The paper
- Michie, S., & Johnston, M. (2004). Changing clinical behaviour by making guidelines specific. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7435.343
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.
