Twelve years of clinical practice guideline development, dissemination and evaluation in Canada (1994 to 2005)

Background - Despite the growing availability of clinical practice guidelines since the early 1990's, little is known about how guideline development and dissemination may have changed over time in Canada. This study compares Canadian guideline development, dissemination, and evaluation in two six year periods from 1994–1999 and 2000–2005. // Methods - Survey of guideline developers who submitted their clinical practice guidelines to the Canadian Medical Association Infobase (a Canadian guideline repository) between 1994 and 2005. Survey items included information about the developers, aspects of guideline development, and dissemination and evaluation activities. // Results - Surveys were sent to the developers of 2341 guidelines in the CMA Infobase over the 12 year period, 1664 surveys were returned (response rate 71%). Of these, 730 unique guidelines were released from 1994–1999, and 630 were released from 2000–2005. Compared to the earlier period, more recent guidelines were being produced in English only. There has been little change in the type of organizations developing guidelines with most developed by provincial and national organizations. In the recent period, developers were more likely to report using computerized search strategies (94% versus 88%), publishing the search strategy (42% versus 34%), reaching consensus using open discussion (95% versus 78%), and evaluating effectiveness of the dissemination strategies (12% versus 6%) and the impact of the CPGs on health outcomes (24% versus 5%). Recent guidelines were less likely to be based on literature reviews (94% versus 99.6%) and were disseminated using fewer strategies (mean 4.78 versus 4.12). // Conclusion - Given that guideline development processes have improved in some areas over the past 12 years yet not in others, ongoing monitoring of guideline quality is required. Guidelines produced more recently in Canada are less likely to be based on a review of the evidence and only about half discuss levels of evidence underlying recommendations. Guideline dissemination and implementation activities have actually decreased. Unfortunately, the potential positive impact on patient health outcomes will not be realized until the recommendations are adopted and acted upon

FIRE (facilitating implementation of research evidence) : a study protocol

Research evidence underpins best practice, but is not always used in healthcare. The Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework suggests that the nature of evidence, the context in which it is used, and whether those trying to use evidence are helped (or facilitated) affect the use of evidence. Urinary incontinence has a major effect on quality of life of older people, has a high prevalence, and is a key priority within European health and social care policy. Improving continence care has the potential to improve the quality of life for older people and reduce the costs associated with providing incontinence aids

A Guide for applying a revised version of the PARIHS framework for implementation

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Based on a critical synthesis of literature on use of the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework, revisions and a companion <it>Guide </it>were developed by a group of researchers independent of the original PARIHS team. The purpose of the <it>Guide </it>is to enhance and optimize efforts of researchers using PARIHS in implementation trials and evaluations.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Authors used a planned, structured process to organize and synthesize critiques, discussions, and potential recommendations for refinements of the PARIHS framework arising from a systematic review. Using a templated form, each author independently recorded key components for each reviewed paper; that is, study definitions, perceived strengths/limitations of PARIHS, other observations regarding key issues and recommendations regarding needed refinements. After reaching consensus on these key components, the authors summarized the information and developed the <it>Guide</it>.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A number of revisions, perceived as consistent with the PARIHS framework's general nature and intent, are proposed. The related <it>Guide </it>is composed of a set of reference tools, provided in Additional files. Its core content is built upon the basic elements of PARIHS and current implementation science.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>We invite researchers using PARIHS for targeted evidence-based practice (EBP) implementations with a strong task-orientation to use this <it>Guide </it>as a companion and to apply the revised framework prospectively and comprehensively. Researchers also are encouraged to evaluate its use relative to perceived strengths and issues. Such evaluations and critical reflections regarding PARIHS and our <it>Guide </it>could thereby promote the framework's continued evolution.</p

Organizational readiness to change assessment (ORCA): Development of an instrument based on the Promoting Action on Research in Health Services (PARIHS) framework

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services, or PARIHS, framework is a theoretical framework widely promoted as a guide to implement evidence-based clinical practices. However, it has as yet no pool of validated measurement instruments that operationalize the constructs defined in the framework. The present article introduces an Organizational Readiness to Change Assessment instrument (ORCA), organized according to the core elements and sub-elements of the PARIHS framework, and reports on initial validation.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted scale reliability and factor analyses on cross-sectional, secondary data from three quality improvement projects (n = 80) conducted in the Veterans Health Administration. In each project, identical 77-item ORCA instruments were administered to one or more staff from each facility involved in quality improvement projects. Items were organized into 19 subscales and three primary scales corresponding to the core elements of the PARIHS framework: (1) Strength and extent of evidence for the clinical practice changes represented by the QI program, assessed with four subscales, (2) Quality of the organizational context for the QI program, assessed with six subscales, and (3) Capacity for internal facilitation of the QI program, assessed with nine subscales.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Cronbach's alpha for scale reliability were 0.74, 0.85 and 0.95 for the evidence, context and facilitation scales, respectively. The evidence scale and its three constituent subscales failed to meet the conventional threshold of 0.80 for reliability, and three individual items were eliminated from evidence subscales following reliability testing. In exploratory factor analysis, three factors were retained. Seven of the nine facilitation subscales loaded onto the first factor; five of the six context subscales loaded onto the second factor; and the three evidence subscales loaded on the third factor. Two subscales failed to load significantly on any factor. One measured resources in general (from the context scale), and one clinical champion role (from the facilitation scale).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>We find general support for the reliability and factor structure of the ORCA. However, there was poor reliability among measures of evidence, and factor analysis results for measures of general resources and clinical champion role did not conform to the PARIHS framework. Additional validation is needed, including criterion validation.</p

The life course of women who have experienced abuse - a life chart study in general psychiatric care.

The life chart offers rich information that provides a broader picture of the lives of women who have experienced abuse. Life charts could be useful for nurses identifying women in general psychiatric care who have experienced abuse. Despite experiences of abuse and stressful events during childhood, there were only a few indications of them receiving support in the life charts. Many of the women had as adults been in contact with or received care at numerous healthcare services