首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
   检索      


Effectiveness of electronic guideline-based implementation systems in ambulatory care settings - a systematic review
Authors:Annemie Heselmans  Stijn Van de Velde  Peter Donceel  Bert Aertgeerts  Dirk Ramaekers
Institution:1. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment, University Hospital Maastricht, PO Box 5800, 6202 AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands
2. Department of General Practice, University of Maastricht, PO Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands
3. School for Public Health and Primary Care (CAPHRI), University of Maastricht, PO Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands
4. Department of Business Economics, Section Marketing Erasmus University Rotterdam, PO Box 1738, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
5. Department of General Surgery, University Hospital Maastricht, PO Box 5800, 6202 AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands
Abstract:

Background

The potential barriers and facilitators to change should guide the choice of implementation strategy. Implementation researchers believe that existing methods for the evaluation of potential barriers and facilitators are not satisfactory. Discrete choice experiments (DCE) are relatively new in the health care sector to investigate preferences, and may be of value in the field of implementation research. The objective of our study was to investigate the complementary value of DCE for the evaluation of barriers and facilitators in implementation research.

Methods

Clinical subject was the implementation of the guideline for breast cancer surgery in day care. We identified 17 potential barriers and facilitators to the implementation of this guideline. We used a traditional questionnaire that was made up of statements about the potential barriers and facilitators. Respondents answered 17 statements on a five-point scale ranging from one (fully disagree) to five (fully agree). The potential barriers and facilitators were included in the DCE as decision attributes. Data were gathered among anaesthesiologists, surgical oncologists, and breast care nurses by means of a paper-and-pencil questionnaire.

Results

The overall response was 10%. The most striking finding was that the responses to the traditional questionnaire hardly differentiated between barriers. Forty-seven percent of the respondents thought that DCE is an inappropriate method. These respondents considered DCE too difficult and too time-consuming. Unlike the traditional questionnaire, the results of a DCE provide implementation researchers and clinicians with a relative attribute importance ranking that can be used to prioritize potential barriers and facilitators to change, and hence to better fine-tune the implementation strategies to the specific problems and challenges of a particular implementation process.

Conclusion

The results of our DCE and traditional questionnaire would probably lead to different implementation strategies. Although there is no 'gold standard' for prioritising potential barriers and facilitators to the implementation of change, theoretically, DCE would be the method of choice. However, the feasibility of using DCE was less favourable. Further empirical applications should investigate whether DCE can really make a valuable contribution to the implementation science.
Keywords:
本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录!
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号