Awareness of adapting clinical practice guidelines to a local context

Dawid Pieper, Eva-Maria Behnke, Rieke Dumke, Christel Kehr-Fuckel, Carolin Radow, Nils Schulze, Markus Follmann, Corinna Schaefer, Robert Prill, Christian Kopkow, Carolin Bahns, Kyung-Eun (Anna) Choi, Lena Fischer
{"title":"Awareness of adapting clinical practice guidelines to a local context","authors":"Dawid Pieper,&nbsp;Eva-Maria Behnke,&nbsp;Rieke Dumke,&nbsp;Christel Kehr-Fuckel,&nbsp;Carolin Radow,&nbsp;Nils Schulze,&nbsp;Markus Follmann,&nbsp;Corinna Schaefer,&nbsp;Robert Prill,&nbsp;Christian Kopkow,&nbsp;Carolin Bahns,&nbsp;Kyung-Eun (Anna) Choi,&nbsp;Lena Fischer","doi":"10.1002/gin2.70025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Guideline recommendations are often not implemented in practice. This can be attributed to factors such as patient preferences and characteristics, structural conditions, personnel or other resources, as well as cultural or ethical aspects. Adaptations to the local context (e.g., regional or hospital) result in so-called locally adapted guidelines (LAGL), which could improve implementation. We aimed to assess the awareness of LAGL among guideline developers in Germany.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>An online survey was conducted via LimeSurvey in May 2024. The questionnaire, designed based on literature and expert opinions, consisted of 23 items, predominantly with dichotomous response options. Recruitment was conducted via email. Direct contact addresses were identified using the German guideline registry (<i>n</i> = 397). Additionally, a mailing list distribution was conducted through the guidelines working group of the German Network for Evidence-Based Medicine (<i>n</i> = 316). Only fully completed questionnaires were included in the analysis. Data cleaning and descriptive analysis were performed using Excel.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>A total of 63 questionnaires were fully completed. The most represented groups were physicians (65%) and methodologists (24%), most frequently in coordination (76%) or as group members (62%). The most judicious reasons for developing a LAGL were differences in patient populations (48%), currency of recommendations (46%), and patient values and preferences (44%). The most commonly cited likely reasons for developing a LAGL were economic considerations (32%), differences in patient populations (30%), and currency of recommendations (30%). Many respondents (59%) were aware of the possibility of adapting existing guidelines to the local context. Among these, approximately half (49%) had already locally adapted a guideline, with 75% using an adaptation framework.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Discussion</h3>\n \n <p>LAGLs are known among guideline developers in Germany and are generally developed using adaptation frameworks. Potential reasons for preparing LAGLs are diverse, with some discrepancies between perceived valid and likely reasons.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"2 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.70025","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/gin2.70025","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Guideline recommendations are often not implemented in practice. This can be attributed to factors such as patient preferences and characteristics, structural conditions, personnel or other resources, as well as cultural or ethical aspects. Adaptations to the local context (e.g., regional or hospital) result in so-called locally adapted guidelines (LAGL), which could improve implementation. We aimed to assess the awareness of LAGL among guideline developers in Germany.

Methods

An online survey was conducted via LimeSurvey in May 2024. The questionnaire, designed based on literature and expert opinions, consisted of 23 items, predominantly with dichotomous response options. Recruitment was conducted via email. Direct contact addresses were identified using the German guideline registry (n = 397). Additionally, a mailing list distribution was conducted through the guidelines working group of the German Network for Evidence-Based Medicine (n = 316). Only fully completed questionnaires were included in the analysis. Data cleaning and descriptive analysis were performed using Excel.

Results

A total of 63 questionnaires were fully completed. The most represented groups were physicians (65%) and methodologists (24%), most frequently in coordination (76%) or as group members (62%). The most judicious reasons for developing a LAGL were differences in patient populations (48%), currency of recommendations (46%), and patient values and preferences (44%). The most commonly cited likely reasons for developing a LAGL were economic considerations (32%), differences in patient populations (30%), and currency of recommendations (30%). Many respondents (59%) were aware of the possibility of adapting existing guidelines to the local context. Among these, approximately half (49%) had already locally adapted a guideline, with 75% using an adaptation framework.

Discussion

LAGLs are known among guideline developers in Germany and are generally developed using adaptation frameworks. Potential reasons for preparing LAGLs are diverse, with some discrepancies between perceived valid and likely reasons.

Abstract Image

认识到使临床实践指南适应当地情况
背景:指南的建议在实践中往往不被执行。这可归因于患者偏好和特征、结构条件、人员或其他资源以及文化或道德方面等因素。根据当地情况(例如,区域或医院)进行调整,形成所谓的根据当地情况调整的准则(LAGL),这可以改善执行情况。我们的目的是评估德国指南开发者对LAGL的认识。方法于2024年5月通过limessurvey进行在线调查。问卷以文献资料和专家意见为基础设计,共23个题项,以二分法为主。招聘是通过电子邮件进行的。使用德国指南注册表确定直接联系地址(n = 397)。此外,通过德国循证医学网络指南工作组进行了邮件列表分发(n = 316)。只有完整填写的问卷才被纳入分析。使用Excel进行数据清理和描述性分析。结果共完成问卷63份。最具代表性的群体是医生(65%)和方法学家(24%),最常见的是协调(76%)或作为小组成员(62%)。制定LAGL最明智的原因是患者群体的差异(48%),推荐的货币(46%)和患者的价值和偏好(44%)。制定LAGL最常见的可能原因是经济考虑(32%),患者群体差异(30%)和推荐货币(30%)。许多受访者(59%)意识到根据当地情况调整现有指导方针的可能性。在这些国家中,大约一半(49%)已经在当地采用了指南,75%使用了适应框架。讨论lagl在德国的指南开发者中是众所周知的,并且通常使用适应框架来开发。准备lagl的潜在原因是多种多样的,在感知到的有效原因和可能的原因之间存在一些差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信