Hamburg Center for Health Economics, University of Hamburg, Esplanade 36, 20354, Hamburg, Germany.
Abbott, Health Economics & Reimbursement, Da Vincilaan 11, 1935, Zaventem, Belgium.
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2021 Mar;19(2):243-252. doi: 10.1007/s40258-020-00610-8. Epub 2020 Sep 24.
Research on clinical practice guidelines as a determinant of the diffusion of medical technology remains sparse. We aim to evaluate the impact of guidelines on the awareness of medical technology, as a proxy of its use, with the example of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in the United Kingdom (UK).
We measured clinician awareness based on Google searches performed for CRT that corresponded with actual CRT implant numbers provided by the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA). We identified the guideline recommendations published by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) within the UK, the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) at the European level, and the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association in the United States (US). We specified a dynamic moving average model, with Google searches as the dependent variable and guideline changes as the independent variables.
One guideline change published by NICE in 2007 and two changes released by the US guidelines in 2005 and 2012 were significantly correlated with the Google searches (p = 0.08, p = 0.02, and p = 0.02, respectively). Guideline changes by the ESC had no significant impact. Changes recommending CRT in place of a conventional pacemaker, in patients with atrial fibrillation, and restricting CRT due to contraindication, remained universally uninfluential.
The factors associated with a lack of awareness (as a proxy for technology diffusion) in our case study were: a lack of strong clinical evidence that resulted in the moderate strength of a recommendation, a lack of recognition of any externally published recommendation by NICE, and the frequent release of guidelines with minor changes targeting small patient groups. At least in our case, in the absence of NICE guidelines, the US guidelines received more attention than their non-UK European counterparts, even if the former were released after the latter.
关于临床实践指南作为医疗技术传播决定因素的研究仍然很少。我们旨在评估指南对医疗技术认知的影响,将其作为使用的替代指标,以英国(UK)心脏再同步治疗(CRT)为例。
我们根据 Google 搜索量来衡量临床医生对 CRT 的认知程度,这些搜索量与欧洲心律协会(EHRA)提供的实际 CRT 植入数量相对应。我们确定了英国国家卫生与保健优化研究所(NICE)、欧洲心脏病学会(ESC)在欧洲层面以及美国心脏病学会基金会/美国心脏协会(ACC/AHA)在美国发布的指南建议。我们指定了一个动态移动平均模型,将 Google 搜索作为因变量,将指南变化作为自变量。
2007 年 NICE 发布的一项指南变化、2005 年和 2012 年美国指南发布的两项变化与 Google 搜索显著相关(p=0.08、p=0.02 和 p=0.02)。ESC 指南变化没有显著影响。推荐 CRT 替代传统起搏器、用于房颤患者以及由于禁忌症限制 CRT 的建议仍然普遍没有影响。
在我们的案例研究中,与认知不足(作为技术传播的替代指标)相关的因素包括:缺乏强有力的临床证据导致推荐力度适中、缺乏对 NICE 发布的任何外部建议的认可,以及频繁发布针对小患者群体的具有较小变化的指南。至少在我们的案例中,在没有 NICE 指南的情况下,美国指南比非英国欧洲指南受到更多关注,即使前者是在后者之后发布的。