Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2004
Impact of national guidelines about the management of colorectal cancer on Australian surgeons' awareness of evidence: a pre/post survey.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Cooney A, Gattellari M, Donnelly N, Ward J
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the immediate impact of national evidence-based guidelines about colorectal cancer on Australian surgeons' self-reported practice and their deficits in awareness of scientific evidence underpinning clinical management practices.
DESIGN: Pre/post evaluation, comprising preguidelines survey (November 1998) and postguidelines survey (February 2001).
METHODS: One hundred and fourteen Australian surgeons returned postguidelines surveys, of whom 103 (90%) agreed to matching of their pre- and postguidelines responses. National distribution of the CRC guidelines occurred in November 1999. Over the ensuing year, dissemination strategies included seminars, presentations at conferences and journal articles. The main outcome measures used were changes in awareness of evidence for each of 23 clinical recommendations, changes in overall awareness score (maximum possible 23), changes in subscore for nine items for which evidence was compelling and predictors of change.
RESULTS: Of those surgeons followed up, 95% were aware of the guidelines and 32% had read them in detail. Only 47% recalled the consumer version. The three most highly rated topics in the guidelines were: high-risk familial syndromes (45%); screening based on family history of colorectal cancer (40%); population screening for colorectal cancer (25%). Compared with baseline, there was a modest improvement in the mean overall awareness score (P = 0.02). Paired analyses of awareness of the evidence for each of 23 individual topics revealed significant improvement only in five. For two, awareness significantly decreased.
CONCLUSIONS: Our pre/post findings are not inconsistent with the expectation that dissemination of the CRC guidelines has had some short-term impact. However, definitive evidence acquired through more rigorously designed controlled trials will be needed to determine first, whether surgical practice has changed and, second, whether implementation of the CRC guidelines or some other secular event caused such change.
DESIGN: Pre/post evaluation, comprising preguidelines survey (November 1998) and postguidelines survey (February 2001).
METHODS: One hundred and fourteen Australian surgeons returned postguidelines surveys, of whom 103 (90%) agreed to matching of their pre- and postguidelines responses. National distribution of the CRC guidelines occurred in November 1999. Over the ensuing year, dissemination strategies included seminars, presentations at conferences and journal articles. The main outcome measures used were changes in awareness of evidence for each of 23 clinical recommendations, changes in overall awareness score (maximum possible 23), changes in subscore for nine items for which evidence was compelling and predictors of change.
RESULTS: Of those surgeons followed up, 95% were aware of the guidelines and 32% had read them in detail. Only 47% recalled the consumer version. The three most highly rated topics in the guidelines were: high-risk familial syndromes (45%); screening based on family history of colorectal cancer (40%); population screening for colorectal cancer (25%). Compared with baseline, there was a modest improvement in the mean overall awareness score (P = 0.02). Paired analyses of awareness of the evidence for each of 23 individual topics revealed significant improvement only in five. For two, awareness significantly decreased.
CONCLUSIONS: Our pre/post findings are not inconsistent with the expectation that dissemination of the CRC guidelines has had some short-term impact. However, definitive evidence acquired through more rigorously designed controlled trials will be needed to determine first, whether surgical practice has changed and, second, whether implementation of the CRC guidelines or some other secular event caused such change.