Dissemination mechanisms of Clinical Practice Guidelines – Mixed methods evidence synthesis

2024 Prague [Global Evidence Summit]

Kumbargere Nagraj S¹, Delvaux N², Lubelwana Hafver T³, Hohlfeld A⁴, Effa E⁵, Mabetha D⁶, Kunje G⁷, Jiao Shen Y⁸, Zaror C⁹, Lakudzala S¹⁰, Mpando T¹¹, van de Velde S³, Agoritsas T³, Vandvik P³

¹Magic Evidence Ecosystem Foundation, OSLO, Norway; University of Plymouth, Plymouth, Devon, United Kingdom

²Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium

³Magic Evidence Ecosystem Foundation, OSLO, Norway

⁴Research Fellow, Centre for Evidence-Based Health Care, Stellenbosch University, South Africa

⁵Senior Lecturer, Internal Medicine at the College of Medical Sciences of the University of Calabar., Nigeria

⁶Senior Scientist, South African Medical Research Council, Health Systems Research Unit, South Africa

⁷Lecturer, Lilongwe University, Malawi

⁸Innovation Institute for Integration of Medicine and Engineering, Chinese Evidence-Based Medicine Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, People's Republic of China

⁹Associate Professor, Center for Research in Epidemiology, Economics and Oral Public Health (CIEESPO), Faculty of Dentistry, Universidad de La Frontera, Chile

¹⁰Senior Research Scientist, Kamuzu University of Health Sciences, Malawi

¹¹Researcher, Kamuzu University of Health Sciences, Malawi

Background:

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are disseminated in various formats through different channels. However, end users might have diverse needs with regards to access and comprehension of CPGs and recommendations. Although many organisations present their CPGs as (often lengthy) documents, this format is not always well received by busy health care professionals. Increasingly, CPGs are digitally developed and structured, allowing for various dissemination formats and products. These different formats and products may include more abridged versions of a CPG, distributed through a variety of channels such as email, newsletters, social media, or academic journals. However, little is known on how these dissemination channels, formats and products (collectively termed as dissemination mechanisms) are received and perceived by end users or how they impact uptake.

Objectives:

We conducted a systematic review to identify documented dissemination mechanisms for CPGs, barriers and facilitators to their access, and the expectations of end users regarding dissemination needs.

Methods:

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, Epistemonikos, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and Medical Guidelines Clearing house. We used the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) Qualitative Studies Checklist to assess the quality of included studies. We followed interweaving approach for this mixed methods evidence synthesis. From the qualitative studies, we will use content analysis method for the first objective and thematic analysis for the latter two objectives. For the quantitative studies, we will present the data as descriptive statistics.

Results:

We obtained 28,596 titles/abstracts and after deduplication, five pairs of reviewers screened the 6,523 titles/abstracts and 406 full text articles. We did purposive sampling to select a total of 50 qualitative studies based on the review objectives. We will present the results for the documented CPG dissemination formats, products and channels in table format. We will analyse the barriers and facilitators as themes. This is an ongoing systematic review and we anticipate to complete this review by July 2024.

Conclusions:

We anticipate that this mixed-methods systematic review will highlight the various mechanisms of dissemination of CPGs and the associated barriers and facilitators.