Trends in guideline implementation: an updated scoping review

PETERS, Sanne, SUKUMAR, Krithika, BLANCHARD, Sophie, RAMASAMY, Akilesh, MALINOWSKI, Jennifer, GINEX, Pamela, SENERTH, Emily, CORREMANS, Marleen, MUNN, Zachary, KREDO, Tamara, REMON, Lucia Prieto, NGEH, Etienne, KALMAN, Lisa, ALHABIB, Samia, AMER, Yasser Sami and GAGLIARDI, Anna (2022). Trends in guideline implementation: an updated scoping review. Implementation Science, 17 (1): 50.

Preview

PDF 13012_2022_Article_1223.pdf - Published Version Creative Commons Attribution. Download (1MB) | Preview

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Guidelines aim to support evidence-informed practice but are inconsistently used without implementation strategies. Our prior scoping review revealed that guideline implementation interventions were not selected and tailored based on processes known to enhance guideline uptake and impact. The purpose of this study was to update the prior scoping review. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL, Scopus, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for studies published from 2014 to January 2021 that evaluated guideline implementation interventions. We screened studies in triplicate and extracted data in duplicate. We reported study and intervention characteristics and studies that achieved impact with summary statistics. Results: We included 118 studies that implemented guidelines on 16 clinical topics. With regard to implementation planning, 21% of studies referred to theories or frameworks, 50% pre-identified implementation barriers, and 36% engaged stakeholders in selecting or tailoring interventions. Studies that employed frameworks (n=25) most often used the theoretical domains framework (28%) or social cognitive theory (28%). Those that pre-identified barriers (n=59) most often consulted literature (60%). Those that engaged stakeholders (n=42) most often consulted healthcare professionals (79%). Common interventions included educating professionals about guidelines (44%) and information systems/technology (41%). Most studies employed multi-faceted interventions (75%). A total of 97 (82%) studies achieved impact (improvements in one or more reported outcomes) including 10 (40% of 25) studies that employed frameworks, 28 (47.45% of 59) studies that pre-identified barriers, 22 (52.38% of 42) studies that engaged stakeholders, and 21 (70% of 30) studies that employed single interventions. Conclusions: Compared to our prior review, this review found that more studies used processes to select and tailor interventions, and a wider array of types of interventions across the Mazza taxonomy. Given that most studies achieved impact, this might reinforce the need for implementation planning. However, even studies that did not plan implementation achieved impact. Similarly, even single interventions achieved impact. Thus, a future systematic review based on this data is warranted to establish if the use of frameworks, barrier identification, stakeholder engagement, and multi-faceted interventions are associated with impact. Trial registration: The protocol was registered with Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/4nxpr) and published in JBI Evidence Synthesis.

Item Type:	Article
Additional Information:	** From Springer Nature via Jisc Publications Router ** Licence for this article: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ **Journal IDs: eissn 1748-5908 **Article IDs: publisher-id: s13012-022-01223-6; manuscript: 1223 **History: collection 12-2022; online 23-07-2022; published 23-07-2022; registration 12-07-2022; accepted 11-07-2022; submitted 07-04-2022
Uncontrolled Keywords:	Systematic Review, Guidelines, Implementation interventions, Implementation strategies, Quality improvement, Scoping review
Identification Number:	https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-022-01223-6
SWORD Depositor:	Colin Knott
Depositing User:	Colin Knott
Date Deposited:	26 Jul 2022 14:47
Last Modified:	12 Oct 2023 11:01
URI:	https://shura.shu.ac.uk/id/eprint/30507

Actions (login required)

View Item

Downloads

Publication Metrics