Article type
Year
Abstract
Introduction: Clinical practice guidelines are systematically designed statements to assist decisions about appropriate health care for specific circumstances. While there has been increasing international literature exploring clinicians' perceptions of guidelines and dissemination strategies, to date there have been no local studies of Australian general practitioners' (GPs) perceptions of guidelines and their attitudes towards different dissemination strategies.
Objective: To determine GPs' views about clinical practice guidelines, including the impact of previously developed guidelines, factors influencing use, preferred dissemination strategies and access to information technology.
Methods: A survey was conducted in 1995 of a national random sample of 373 Australian GPs using an 11-page self-administered questionnaire.
Results: 286 GPs (77%) returned completed questionnaires. While 92% considered that guidelines were good educational tools, GPs' recall of 9 different guidelines ranged from 52-94%. There were significant differences in GPs' ratings of the credibility of different organisations in guidelines development. The factor identified by 88% of GPs as very important in deciding whether to follow a guideline was whether it was based on scientific evidence such as systematic reviews. Strategies nominated as likely to increase the adoption of guidelines included academic detailing by a nurse and financial incentives. While 59% preferred guidelines in one official manual, 29% indicated a preference for dissemination of such evidence-based information in more innovative formats such as computer software. However, only 25% had access to a personal computer with a modem and 9% had Internet access.
Discussion: Australian GPs appear positive about the overall purpose of clinical practice guidelines and an evidence-based approach, although the dissemination of specific guidelines has been patchy. These findings have implications for the dissemination of guidelines incorporating the results of Cochrane systematic reviews. Local intervention studies are needed to understand how the work of the Cochrane Collaboration can be communicated effectively to promote evidence-based clinical practice in Australia.
Objective: To determine GPs' views about clinical practice guidelines, including the impact of previously developed guidelines, factors influencing use, preferred dissemination strategies and access to information technology.
Methods: A survey was conducted in 1995 of a national random sample of 373 Australian GPs using an 11-page self-administered questionnaire.
Results: 286 GPs (77%) returned completed questionnaires. While 92% considered that guidelines were good educational tools, GPs' recall of 9 different guidelines ranged from 52-94%. There were significant differences in GPs' ratings of the credibility of different organisations in guidelines development. The factor identified by 88% of GPs as very important in deciding whether to follow a guideline was whether it was based on scientific evidence such as systematic reviews. Strategies nominated as likely to increase the adoption of guidelines included academic detailing by a nurse and financial incentives. While 59% preferred guidelines in one official manual, 29% indicated a preference for dissemination of such evidence-based information in more innovative formats such as computer software. However, only 25% had access to a personal computer with a modem and 9% had Internet access.
Discussion: Australian GPs appear positive about the overall purpose of clinical practice guidelines and an evidence-based approach, although the dissemination of specific guidelines has been patchy. These findings have implications for the dissemination of guidelines incorporating the results of Cochrane systematic reviews. Local intervention studies are needed to understand how the work of the Cochrane Collaboration can be communicated effectively to promote evidence-based clinical practice in Australia.