ObjectivesTo establish statistical analysis and result reporting model for evaluation of the applicability of the clinical guidelines. We conducted an empirical study for clinical guidelines for the prevention and treatment of type 2 diabetes in China.MethodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted to select 6 to 8 doctors in geriatric, endocrinology, nephrology or related departments from medical institutions. The questionnaire was filled by doctors at a conference and electronic questionnaires were sent to those who did not attend the conference. Descriptive analysis was carried out for characteristics of evaluators, scores of each dimension, access to guidelines and factors affecting implementation. The Kruskal-Wallis rank-sum test and Nemenyi test were used for multi-group comparison and pairwise comparison. Multiple linear regressions with the stepwise strategy were used to screen out the association factors.ResultsA total of 725 questionnaires were collected in this survey. There were 722 valid questionnaires with an active recovery rate of 99.6%. The results showed the accessibility score was lowest and the acceptability score was highest. The results of multi-group comparison and multiple linear regression analysis showed that familiarity with the guidelines was the influencing factor of each score (P<0.05). The guidelines were primarily obtained from academic conferences (52.1%), WeChat (45.4%), and biomedical literature databases (43.5%). Among the evaluators, 44 (41.9%) believed that there were implementation obstacles in the guidelines, among which 136 (18.8%), 134 (18.5%) and 133 (18.4%) believed that implementation obstacles were medical personnel factor, patient factor and environmental factor.ConclusionsIn this study, a data analysis and result report model for the assessment of the applicability of the guidelines is established to provide evidence for the development/revision of the guidelines.
ObjectivesTo establish statistical analysis and result reporting model for evaluation of the applicability of the clinical guidelines. We conducted empirical study for clinical guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of renal transplantation rejection in China.MethodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted to select 16 medical institutions in China which had carried out kidney transplantations. In each medical institution, 6 to 8 clinicians from the kidney transplantation department or related departments were selected to complete the questionnaire. Descriptive analysis was carried out for characteristics of evaluators, scores of each dimension, access to guidelines and factors affecting implementation. The Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test and Nemenyi test were used for multi-group comparison and pairwise comparison. Multiple linear regression with stepwise strategy were used to screen out the association factors.ResultsIn this survey, 128 questionnaires were distributed, in which 105 valid questionnaires were collected, and the recovery rate was 82.03%. The subjects of this survey were all kidney transplant clinicians from public tertiary hospitals, with an average 10.95 years of working time. The results showed the accessibility score was lowest and the acceptability score was highest. The results of multi-group comparison and multiple linear regression analysis showed that familiarity with the guidelines was the influencing factor of each score (P<0.05). The guidelines were primarily obtained from biomedical literature database (73.3%), academic journals (55.2%) and academic conferences (55.2%). Among the evaluators, 44 (41.9%) believed that there were implementation obstacles in the guidelines, among which 40 (38.1%) believed that implementation obstacles were environmental factors.ConclusionsThe applicability of clinical guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of renal transplantation rejection in China is adequate. However, the publicity of the guideline requires improvement. As the guideline is updated, consideration should be given to including access to the guideline, adding free public information promotion, and familiarizing clinicians with the guidelines through training programs to promote application of the guideline.
ObjectivesTo establish a tool for evaluating clinical applicability of guidelines with the users of the guidelines as evaluators.MethodsThe research group formed a multidisciplinary team to establish an evidence- based tool for evaluating clinical applicability of guidelines through systematic evaluation and two rounds of Delphi expert consultation and external audit.ResultsThe established tool consisted: evaluator basic information (12 items); clinical applicability evaluation (12 items, including availability, readability, acceptability, feasibility and overall evaluation); and scoring scheme.ConclusionsThis study has established a tool for evaluating clinical applicability of guidelines with the users of the guidelines as evaluators and provides criteria and methods for evaluating clinical applicability of guidelines.
ObjectivesThis study aimed to evaluate the validity and reliability of the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) applicability evaluation tool, a preliminary revised tool, by using it to appraise specific clinical guidelines.MethodsMedical staffs were sampled from relevant departments in domestic medical institutions to use tool to evaluate the two guidelines. Spearman-Brown coefficient of odd-even split-half method and Cronbach's alpha coefficient were used to evaluate the split-half reliability and internal consistency reliability. The convergent and discriminant validity were evaluated by correlation analysis and correlation coefficient comparison hypothesis test, and the structural validity was investigated by confirmatory factor analysis based on structural equation.ResultsThe split-half reliability of the evaluation tool was 0.86, and the Cronbach's coefficient of the whole tool and each dimension were greater than 0.7 for two guidelines. The success rates of tool convergent and discriminant validity calibration were 100%. In the second-order confirmatory factor analysis model, the χ2 and df were 3.38 and 2.46, the comparative fit index (CFI) were 0.872 and 0.974, the goodness of fit index (GFI) were 0.954 and 0.983, and the adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI) were 0.846 and 0.959 for two guidelines respectively. Both standard root mean square residual (SRMR) and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) were less than 0.09. Both P values of RMSEA hypothesis test were greater than 0.05.ConclusionsThe evaluation scale is a valid and reliable instrument for assessing the applicability of CPGs, which should be further evaluated in practical applications in the future.