Cited by 103Clinical practice guidelines implementationHealth Policy Implementation ScienceHealth Sciences Research and Education

Effectiveness of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies on health care professionals’ behaviour and patient outcomes in the cancer care context: a systematic review

Open access
Tomasone, Jennifer R., Kauffeldt, Kaitlyn D., Chaudhary, Rushil, Brouwers, Melissa C.·2020·Implementation Science

Abstract

Background: Health care professionals (HCPs) use clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to make evidence-informed decisions regarding patient care. Although a large number of cancer-related CPGs exist, it is unknown which CPG dissemination and implementation strategies are effective for improving HCP behaviour and patient outcomes in a cancer care context. This review aimed to determine the effectiveness of CPG dissemination and/or implementation strategies among HCPs in a cancer care context. Methods: A comprehensive search of five electronic databases was conducted. Studies were limited to the dissemination and/or implementation of a CPG targeting both medical and/or allied HCPs in cancer care. Two reviewers independently coded strategies using the Mazza taxonomy, extracted study findings, and assessed study quality. Results: The search strategy identified 33 studies targeting medical and/or allied HCPs. Across the 33 studies, 23 of a possible 49 strategies in the Mazza taxonomy were used, with a mean number of 3.25 (SD = 1.45) strategies per intervention. The number of strategies used per intervention was not associated with positive outcomes. Educational strategies ( n = 24), feedback on guideline compliance ( n = 11), and providing reminders ( n = 10) were the most utilized strategies. When used independently, providing reminders and feedback on CPG compliance corresponded with positive significant changes in outcomes. Further, when used as part of multi-strategy interventions, group education and organizational strategies (e.g. creation of an implementation team) corresponded with positive significant changes in outcomes. Conclusions: Future CPG dissemination and implementation interventions for cancer care HCPs may benefit from utilizing the identified strategies. Research in this area should aim for better alignment between study objectives, intervention design, and evaluation measures, and should seek to incorporate theory in intervention design, so that behavioural antecedents are considered and measured; doing so would enhance the field’s understanding of the causal mechanisms by which interventions lead, or do not lead, to changes in outcomes at all levels.

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 · 10.1186/s13012-020-0971-6

Cites

57 of 57 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?

  • Much of the evidence for individual or groups of ERIC strategies remains narrowly focused, with prior systematic reviews and meta-analyses generally focusing on a specific strategy, subpopulation, disease, outcome, service setting, or geography.

    “However, much of the evidence for individual or groups of ERIC strategies remains narrowly focused. Prior systematic reviews and meta-analyses have assessed strategy effectiveness, but have generally focused on a specific strategy, (e.g., Audit and Provide Feedback) [14–16], subpopulation, disease (e.g., individuals living with dementia) [16], outcome [15], service setting (e.g., primary care Clin”

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: 10

  1. [4]Graham I., Straus S., Tetroe J. Knowledge translation in health care: moving from evidence to practice - CIHR [Internet]. 2nd ed. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Chichester, West Sussex; Hoboken, NJ; 2015. Available from: www.wiley.com/wiley-blackwell%0A http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/40618.html.
  2. [8]Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Review Group (EPOC). Data collection checklist: EPOC taxanomy. Data Collect Checkl [Internet]. 2015; Available from: http://epoc.cochrane.org/epoc-taxonomy.
  3. [15]The Institute of Medicine the National Cancer Institute and the National Research Council AS of CO. From cancer patient to survivor: lost in transition. Cancer survivorship: improving care and quality of life. Washington, DC: National Academies Press (US); 2005. 536 p.
  4. [29]Ayanian JZ Sequist TD Zaslavsky AM Johannes RS Physician reminders to promote surveillance colonoscopy for colorectal adenomas: a randomized controlled trial J Gen Intern Med 2008 23 6 762 767 10.1007/s11606-008-0576-2 18386103 PMC2517870 · DOI
  5. [31]Burack RC Gimotty PA George J McBride S Moncrease A Simon MS How reminders given to patients and physicians affected Pap smear use in a health maintenance organization: results of a randomized controlled trial Cancer 1998 82 12 2391 2400 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19980615)82:12<2391::AID-CNCR13>3.0.CO;2-K 9635532 · DOI
  6. [43]Kerfoot BP Lawler EV Sokolovskaya G Gagnon D Conlin PR Durable improvements in prostate cancer screening from online spaced education: a randomized controlled trial Am J Prev Med 2010 39 5 472 478 10.1016/j.amepre.2010.07.016 20965387 PMC2994103 · DOI
  7. [46]Ling BS Schoen RE Trauth JM Wahed AS Eury T Simak DM Physicians encouraging colorectal screening: a randomized controlled trial of enhanced office and patient management on compliance with colorectal cancer screening Arch Intern Med 2009 169 1 47 55 10.1001/archinternmed.2008.519 19139323 · DOI
  8. [49]Ornstein S Nemeth LS Jenkins RG Nietert PJ Colorectal cancer screening in primary care: translating research into practice Med Care 2010 48 10 900 906 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181ec5591 20808257 PMC4107393 · DOI
  9. [57]Sequist TD Zaslavsky AM Marshall R Fletcher RH Ayanian JZ Patient and physician reminders to promote colorectal cancer screening: a randomized controlled trial Arch Intern Med 2009 169 4 364 371 10.1001/archinternmed.2008.564 19237720 PMC2683730 · DOI
  10. [58]Walsh JME Salazar R Terdiman JP Gildengorin G Pérez-Stable EJ Promoting use of colorectal cancer screening tests: can we change physician behavior? J Gen Intern Med 2005 20 12 1097 1101 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.0245.x 16423097 PMC1490293 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tomasone, J. R., Kauffeldt, K. D., Chaudhary, R., & Brouwers, M. C.
Affiliations
  • Queen's University (CA)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
Corresponding author
Tomasone, Jennifer R.
Venue
Implementation Science
Published
2020-06-03
Volume
15
Issue
1
Pages
41-41
ISSN
1748-5908 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3032249524
Cited by
103
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 5
FWCI
1.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Implementation Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • QSpace (Queen's University Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • uO Research (University of Ottawa) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
  • TSpace (University of Toronto) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Canadian Institutes of Health Research (TGF97068)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
Keywords
guideline dissemination, guideline implementation, cancer care, healthcare workers, professional conduct, patient outcomes, reminders, educational strategies, organizational strategy, implementation strategies
MeSH terms
Formative Feedback, Implementation Science, Attitude of Health Personnel, Clinical Trials as Topic, Patient Care, Health Education, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Neoplasms, Reminder Systems, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Guideline Adherence, Quality Indicators, Health Care, Information Dissemination

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