Search

Background: Clinical practice guidelines are crucial for enhancing healthcare quality and patient outcomes. Yet, their implementation remains inconsistent across various professions and disciplines. Previous findings on the implementation of the German guideline for schizophrenia (2019) revealed low adherence rates among healthcare professionals. Barriers to guideline adherence are multifaceted, influenced by individual, contextual, and guideline-related factors. This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of a digital guideline version compared to print/PDF formats in enhancing guideline adherence. Methods: A multicenter, cluster-randomized controlled trial was conducted in South Bavaria, Germany, involving psychologists and physicians. Participants were divided into two groups: implementation of the guideline using a digital online version via the MAGICapp platform and the other using the traditional print/PDF version. The study included a baseline assessment and a post-intervention assessment following a 6-month intervention phase. The primary outcome was guideline knowledge, which was assessed using a guideline knowledge questionnaire. Results: The study included 217 participants at baseline and 120 at post-intervention. Both groups showed significant improvements in guideline knowledge; however, no notable difference was found between both study groups regarding guideline knowledge at either time points. At baseline, 43.6% in the control group (CG) and 52.5% of the interventional group (IG) met the criterion. There was no significant difference in the primary outcome between the two groups at either time point (T0: Chi2(1) = 1.65, p = 0.199, T1: Chi2(1) = 0.34, p = 0.561). At post-intervention, both groups improved, with 58.2% in the CG and 63.5% in the IG meeting this criterion. Conclusions: While the study did not include a control group without any implementation strategy, the overall improvement in guideline knowledge following an implementation strategy, independent of the format, was confirmed. The digital guideline version, while not superior in enhancing knowledge, showed potential benefits in shared decision-making skills. However, familiarity with traditional formats and various barriers to digital application may have influenced these results. The study highlights the importance of tailored implementation strategies, especially for younger healthcare providers. Trial registration: https://drks.de/search/de/trial/DRKS00028895 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The implementation status of clinical guidelines is, despite their important role in connecting research with practice, frequently not satisfactory. This study aims to investigate the implementation status of the current German guideline for schizophrenia. Moreover, the attitude toward a living guideline has been explored for the first time by presenting screenshots of the German schizophrenia guideline transferred to a digital living guideline format called MAGICapp. A cross-sectional online survey was performed under the participation of 17 hospitals for psychiatry and psychosomatic medicine in Southern Germany and one professional association for German neurologists and psychiatrists. 439 participants supplied sufficient data for analysis. 309 provided complete data sets. Regarding the current guideline for schizophrenia and key recommendations, a large awareness-to-adherence gap was found. Group comparisons between different professions (caregivers, medical doctors, psychologists/psychotherapists, psychosocial therapists) detected differences in the implementation status showing higher awareness and agreement with the schizophrenia guideline and its key recommendations among medical doctors compared to psychosocial therapists and caregivers. Moreover, we detected differences in the implementation status of the guideline as a whole and its key recommendations between specialist and assistant doctors. The attitude toward an upcoming living guideline was mostly positive, especially among younger healthcare professionals. Our findings confirm an awareness-to-adherence gap, not only for the current schizophrenia guideline in general but also for its key recommendations with apparent differences between professions. Overall, our results show promising positive attitudes toward the living guideline for schizophrenia among healthcare providers, suggesting that a living guideline may be a supportive tool in everyday clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aims to investigate the barriers and facilitators to guideline adherence for the print format of the German schizophrenia guideline as well as for the concept of a digital living guideline for the first time. For this purpose, the schizophrenia guideline was transferred to a digital guideline format within the web-based tool MAGICapp. An online survey was performed under participation of mental healthcare professionals (medical doctors, psychologists/psychotherapists, psychosocial therapists, caregivers) in 17 hospitals for psychiatry in Southern Germany and a professional association for German neurologists and psychiatrists. 524 participants opened the survey, 439 completed the demographic questions and commenced the content-related survey and 309 provided complete data sets. Results indicate a higher occurrence of knowledge-related barriers for the living guideline. The print version is associated with more attitude-related and external barriers. Older professionals reported more attitude-related barriers to a living guideline compared to younger professionals. Differences between professions regarding barriers were found for both formats. Various barriers exist for both guideline formats and a need for facilitators was expressed across professions. Many of the mentioned obstacles and facilitators can be more easily addressed with living guidelines. However, also living guidelines face barriers. Thus, the introduction of these new formats alone cannot lead to sustainable behavior change regarding guideline adherence. Yet, living guidelines seem to be a cornerstone to improved and tailored guideline implementation as they facilitate to keep recommendations up to date and to address the need of individual professional groups., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Objective: The goal of living guidelines is keeping recommendations in guidelines up-to-date as new evidence becomes available. This review aims at scoping the prevalence and formal characteristics of living guidelines in the field of medicine and explore differences between formats., Methods: A selective search of living guidelines in MEDLINE via PubMed, Google Scholar and six relevant online repositories for guidelines (MAGICApp, AWMF, GIN, NICE, WHO-Iris, BIGG) was conducted. Authors and editors were contacted to receive previous non-living guideline versions. Living guidelines were subsequently analyzed according to pre-defined methodological criteria as described below (inter-comparison). Differences between living and their conventional (non-living) versions were assessed (intra-comparison)., Results: 83 living guidelines were identified and selected for further screening, out of which 26 were eligible for analysis. 61.5% were new publications (de-novo guidelines) and 38.5% updates of pre-existing guidelines. There are some concepts defining, for example, the update cycle (AWMF, maximum of 12 months) but not all living guidelines follow or refer to existing concepts. The analysis shows that living guidelines in line with the established standards for (non-living) clinical guidelines involve an evidence standard, an extensive consensus process (often in the form of a Delphi process), and the inclusion of stakeholders (patients/relatives) in the development process, despite the high frequency of updates. When comparing living and conventional guidelines with the descriptive approach changes were found in update frequency (being more frequent with living guidelines, annually at the latest) and publication format (towards more digital) and public consultation (living guidelines offered more possibilities), no substantial methodological differences were observed in the description of consensus processes, changes in number of recommendations, inclusion of patient representatives. Given the small number of comparable pairs, the results reflect a tendency in the analyzed sample., Conclusions: The definition and development of living guidelines varied. Standardization (i. e. in the form of a checklist, procedure template) is needed to assess quality of the living process., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier GmbH.)

Background: Information regarding the distribution of evidence grades in psychiatry and psychotherapy guidelines is lacking. Based on the German evidence- and consensus- based (S3) psychiatry and psychotherapy and the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) treatment guidelines, we aimed to specify how guideline recommendations are composed and to what extent recommendations are evidence-based., Methods: Data was collected from all published evidence- and consensus-based S3-classified psychiatry and psychotherapy guidelines. As control conditions, data from German neurology S3-classified guidelines as well as data from recent SIGN guidelines of mental health were extracted. Two investigators reviewed the selected guidelines independently, extracted and analysed the numbers and levels of recommendations., Results: On average, 45.1% of all recommendations are not based on strong scientific evidence in German guidelines of psychiatry and psychotherapy. A related pattern can be confirmed for SIGN guidelines, where the mean average of recommendations with lacking evidence is 33.9%. By contrast, in the German guidelines of neurology the average of such recommendations is 16.5%. A total of 24.5% of all recommendations in the guidelines of psychiatry and psychotherapy are classified as level A recommendations, compared to 31.6% in the field of neurology and 31.1% in the SIGN guidelines. Related patterns were observed for B and 0 level recommendations., Conclusion: Guidelines should be practical tools to simplify the decision-making process based on scientific evidence. Up to 45% of all recommendations in the investigated guidelines of psychiatry and psychotherapy are not based on strong scientific evidence. The reasons for this high number remain unclear. Possibly, only a limited number of studies answer clinically relevant questions. Our findings thereby question whether guidelines should include non-evidence-based recommendations to be methodologically stringent and whether specific processes to develop expert-opinion statements must be implemented.