Guideline Implementation in Standardized Office Workflows and Exam Types

Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice of the Gastroenterology Department Patients Towards Chronic Gastritis in Shanxi Region: A Cross-Sectional Study

Background

Chronic gastritis affects more than half of the global population to varying extents.

Objectives

This study aimed to investigate the knowledge, attitude, and practice (KAP) of patients admitted to the gastroenterology department in the Shanxi region concerning chronic gastritis.

Methods

This study was conducted in Shanxi between April and July 2023. The participants were enrolled when they consulted at the clinic. Demographic characteristics and KAP scores were collected through a self-administered questionnaire. KAP scores >60% were considered good. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was utilized to examine the relationships among the dimensions of knowledge, attitude, and practice.

Results

A total of 416 valid questionnaires were collected. The median knowledge score was 28 (0-60) (with possible values of 0-60), the median attitude score was 60 (28-77) (with possible values of 16-80), and the median practice score was 45 (12-60) (with possible values of 12-60). Hence, 133, 379, and 343 participants had knowledge, attitude, and practice scores, respectively, above the 60% threshold. Significant positive correlations were found between knowledge and attitude (r=0.300, P<0.001), knowledge and practice (r = 0.297, P<0.001), and attitude and practice (r=0.353, P=0.004) through correlation analysis. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) revealed that knowledge directly and significantly influenced attitude (β=0.643, P<0.001), as well as practice (β=0.095, P=0.034), and attitude had a direct effect on practice (β=0.094, P=0.009).

Conclusion

Insufficient knowledge, positive attitudes, and proactive practices concerning chronic gastritis were observed in patients in the gastroenterology department. Prioritizing patient education and addressing patient attitudes during clinical consultations can enhance healthcare practices and improve the management of chronic gastritis.

Models and frameworks for assessing the implementation of clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The implementation of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) is a cyclical process in which the evaluation stage can facilitate continuous improvement. Implementation science has utilized theoretical approaches, such as models and frameworks, to understand and address this process. This article aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the models and frameworks used to assess the implementation of CPGs.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted following the Cochrane methodology, with adaptations to the "selection process" due to the unique nature of this review. The findings were reported following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) reporting guidelines. Electronic databases were searched from their inception until May 15, 2023. A predetermined strategy and manual searches were conducted to identify relevant documents from health institutions worldwide. Eligible studies presented models and frameworks for assessing the implementation of CPGs. Information on the characteristics of the documents, the context in which the models were used (specific objectives, level of use, type of health service, target group), and the characteristics of each model or framework (name, domain evaluated, and model limitations) were extracted. The domains of the models were analyzed according to the key constructs: strategies, context, outcomes, fidelity, adaptation, sustainability, process, and intervention. A subgroup analysis was performed grouping models and frameworks according to their levels of use (clinical, organizational, and policy) and type of health service (community, ambulatorial, hospital, institutional). The JBI's critical appraisal tools were utilized by two independent researchers to assess the trustworthiness, relevance, and results of the included studies.

RESULTS

Database searches yielded 14,395 studies, of which 80 full texts were reviewed. Eight studies were included in the data analysis and four methodological guidelines were additionally included from the manual search. The risk of bias in the studies was considered non-critical for the results of this systematic review. A total of ten models/frameworks for assessing the implementation of CPGs were found. The level of use was mainly policy, the most common type of health service was institutional, and the major target group was professionals directly involved in clinical practice. The evaluated domains differed between the models and there were also differences in their conceptualization. All the models addressed the domain "Context", especially at the micro level (8/12), followed by the multilevel (7/12). The domains "Outcome" (9/12), "Intervention" (8/12), "Strategies" (7/12), and "Process" (5/12) were frequently addressed, while "Sustainability" was found only in one study, and "Fidelity/Adaptation" was not observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of models and frameworks for assessing the implementation of CPGs is still incipient. This systematic review may help stakeholders choose or adapt the most appropriate model or framework to assess CPGs implementation based on their specific health context.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) registration number: CRD42022335884. Registered on June 7, 2022.

Iowa Implementation for Sustainability Framework

Background

An application-oriented implementation framework designed for clinicians and based on the Diffusion of Innovations theory included 81 implementation strategies with suggested timing for use within four implementation phases. The purpose of this research was to evaluate and strengthen the framework for clinician use and propose its usefulness in implementation research.

Methods

A multi-step, iterative approach guided framework revisions. Individuals requesting the use of the framework over the previous 7 years were sent an electronic questionnaire. Evaluation captured framework usability, generalizability, accuracy, and implementation phases for each strategy. Next, nurse leaders who use the framework pile sorted strategies for cultural domain analysis. Last, a panel of five EBP/implementation experts used these data and built consensus to strengthen the framework.

Results

Participants (n = 127/1578; 8% response) were predominately nurses (94%), highly educated (94% Master’s or higher), and from across healthcare (52% hospital/system, 31% academia, and 7% community) in the USA (84%). Most (96%) reported at least some experience using the framework and 88% would use the framework again. A 4-point scale (1 = not/disagree to 4 = very/agree) was used. The framework was deemed useful (92%, rating 3–4), easy to use (72%), intuitive (67%), generalizable (100%), flexible and adaptive (100%), with accurate phases (96%), and accurate targets (100%). Participants (n = 51) identified implementation strategy timing within four phases (Cochran’s Q); 54 of 81 strategies (66.7%, p < 0.05) were significantly linked to a specific phase; of these, 30 (55.6%) matched the original framework. Next, nurse leaders (n = 23) completed a pile sorting activity. Anthropac software was used to analyze the data and visualize it as a domain map and hierarchical clusters with 10 domains. Lastly, experts used these data and implementation science to refine and specify each of the 75 strategies, identifying phase, domain, actors, and function. Strategy usability, timing, and groupings were used to refine the framework.

Conclusion

The Iowa Implementation for Sustainability Framework offers a typology to guide implementation for evidence-based healthcare. This study specifies 75 implementation strategies within four phases and 10 domains and begins to validate the framework. Standard use of strategy names is foundational to compare and understand when implementation strategies are effective, in what dose, for which topics, by whom, and in what context.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13012-021-01157-5.