Suppr超能文献

临床医生如何使用实施工具将乳腺癌筛查指南应用于实践?

How do clinicians use implementation tools to apply breast cancer screening guidelines to practice?

机构信息

Department of Family Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.

The Foundation for Medical Practice Education, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.

出版信息

Implement Sci. 2018 Jun 7;13(1):79. doi: 10.1186/s13012-018-0765-2.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Implementation tools (iTools) may enhance uptake of guidelines. However, little evidence exists on their use by primary care clinicians. This study explored which iTools clinicians used and how often; how satisfied clinicians were with the tools; whether tool use was associated with practice changes; and identified mediators for practice change(s) related to breast cancer screening (BCS).

METHODS

Canadian primary care providers who are members of the Practice-Based Small Group Learning Program (n = 1464) were invited to participate in this mixed methods study. An educational module was discussed in a small group learning context, and data collection included an on-line survey, practice reflection tools (PRTs), and interviews. The module included both the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care revised guideline on BCS and iTools for clinician and/or patient use. After discussing the module and at 3 months, participants completed PRTs identifying their planned practice change(s) and documenting implementation outcome(s). Use of the iTools was explored via online survey and individual interviews.

RESULTS

Seventy participants agreed to participate. Of these, 48 participated in the online survey, 43 completed PRTs and 14 were interviewed. Most survey participants (77%) reported using at least one of seven tools available for implementing BCS guideline. Of these (78%) reported using more than one tool. Almost all participants used tools for clinicians (92%) and 62% also used tools for patients. As more tools were used, more practice changes were reported on the survey and PRTs. Interviews provided additional findings. Once information from an iTool was internalized, there was no further need for the tool. Participants did not use tools (23%) due to disagreements with the BCS guideline, patients' expectations, and/or experiences with diagnosis of breast cancer.

CONCLUSION

This study found that clinicians use tools to implement practice changes related to BCS guideline. Tools developed for clinicians were used to understand and consolidate the recommendations before tools to be used with patients were employed to promote decision-making. Mediating factors that impacted tool use confirmed previous research. Finally, use of some iTools decreased over time because information was internalized.

摘要

背景

实施工具(iTools)可以提高指南的采用率。然而,关于初级保健临床医生使用这些工具的证据很少。本研究探讨了临床医生使用了哪些 iTools,以及使用的频率;临床医生对这些工具的满意度;工具使用是否与实践改变相关;并确定了与乳腺癌筛查(BCS)相关的实践改变的中介因素。

方法

加拿大参与基于实践的小团体学习计划(Practice-Based Small Group Learning Program)的初级保健提供者(n=1464)被邀请参加这项混合方法研究。一个教育模块在小团体学习环境中进行讨论,数据收集包括在线调查、实践反思工具(PRTs)和访谈。该模块包括加拿大预防保健工作组修订的 BCS 指南和供临床医生和/或患者使用的 iTools。在讨论完该模块后,参与者在 3 个月时完成了 PRTs,确定他们计划的实践改变和记录实施结果。通过在线调查和个人访谈探索 iTools 的使用情况。

结果

70 名参与者同意参与。其中,48 人参加了在线调查,43 人完成了 PRTs,14 人接受了访谈。大多数在线调查参与者(77%)报告至少使用了 7 种可供实施 BCS 指南的工具中的一种。其中(78%)报告使用了不止一种工具。几乎所有参与者都使用了针对临床医生的工具(92%),而 62%的人还使用了针对患者的工具。使用的工具越多,调查和 PRTs 报告的实践改变就越多。访谈提供了更多的发现。一旦 iTool 的信息被内化,就不再需要该工具。由于与 BCS 指南、患者的期望以及/或乳腺癌诊断的经验不一致,参与者(23%)没有使用工具。

结论

本研究发现,临床医生使用工具来实施与 BCS 指南相关的实践改变。为了理解和整合建议,临床医生使用了为他们开发的工具,然后才使用针对患者的工具来促进决策。影响工具使用的中介因素证实了之前的研究。最后,由于信息被内化,一些 iTools 的使用随着时间的推移而减少。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验