Why don't physicians adhere to guideline recommendations in practice? An analysis of barriers among Dutch general practitioners

By Marjolein Lugtenberg, Judith M Zegers-van Schaick, Gert P. Westert, Jako S Burgers. Implementation science : IS, 2009

716 citations recorded by the source corpus.

BackgroundDespite wide distribution and promotion of clinical practice guidelines, adherence among Dutch general practitioners (GPs) is not optimal. To improve adherence to guidelines, an analysis of barriers to implementation is advocated. Because different recommendations within a guideline can have different barriers, in this study we focus on key recommendations rather than guidelines as a whole, and explore the barriers to implementation perceived by Dutch GPs.MethodsA qualitative study using six focus groups was conducted, in which 30 GPs participated, with an average of seven per session. Fifty-six key recommendations were derived from twelve national guidelines. In each focus group, barriers to the implementation of the key recommendations of two clinical practice guidelines were discussed. Focus group discussions were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Data was analysed by using an existing framework of barriers.ResultsThe barriers varied largely within guidelines, with each key recommendation having a unique pattern of barriers. The most perceived barriers were lack of agreement with the recommendations due to lack of applicability or lack of evidence (68% of key recommendations), environmental factors such as organisational constraints (52%), lack of knowledge regarding the guideline recommendations (46%), and guideline factors such as unclear or ambiguous guideline recommendations (43%).ConclusionOur study findings suggest a broad range of barriers. As the barriers largely differ within guidelines, tailored and barrier-driven implementation strategies focusing on key recommendations are needed to improve adherence in practice. In addition, guidelines should be more transparent concerning the underlying evidence and applicability, and further efforts are needed to address complex issues such as comorbidity in guidelines. Finally, it might be useful to include focus groups in continuing medical education as an innovative medium for guideline education and implementation.

Subfields: General Health Professions, Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/78b4b2dbba5d5850da8ea19f347d1d62ce636ced

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In General Health Professions

In Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Laura J. Damschroder

Citations in the corpus

Systematic Review of Factors Influencing the Adoption of Information and Communication Technologies by Healthcare Professionals (2012, neutral): “For example, time constraints, which was one of the main ICT adoption barriers cited, was also the main barrier cited to the implementation of shared decision-making in clinical practice [19].”
Comparison of user groups' perspectives of barriers and facilitators to implementing electronic health records: a systematic review (2011, neutral): “…by SG, validated by CAM, and mediated by MPG. Data extraction was undertaken using a validated data extraction grid, developed through previous research related to the classification of barriers and facilitators to the implementation of shared decision-making in health-care settings [22-25].”
Review Article: How can we make organizational interventions work? Employees and line managers as actively crafting interventions (2013, background): “The current lack of information on implementation fidelity prevents researchers from conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses that capture the heterogeneity between studies, with data being pooled inadequately (Carroll et al., 2007).”
Implementing shared decision making in the NHS (2010, neutral): “Despite considerable interest in shared decision making, implementation has proved difficult and slow.”
Implementation Fidelity in Community-Based Interventions (2010, methodology): “Terms used include implementation fidelity (C. Carroll et al., 2007; Lee et al., 2008; Mihalic, 2004; Rohrbach, Gunning, Sun, & Sussman, in press), fidelity of implementation (Dusenbury et al., 2003; Sánchez et al., 2007), fidelity (Fixsen et al., 2005; Forgatch, Patterson, & DeGarmo, 2005),…”
Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science (2009, background): “A component analysis can be performed to identify the core versus adaptable periphery components [29], but often the distinction is one that can only be discerned through trial and error over time as the intervention is disseminated more widely and adapted for a variety of contexts [26].”
Spatial thinking in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: Elementary teachers' beliefs, perceptions, and self‐efficacy (2021, background): “Implementation fidelity is a critical component of developing and maintaining effective programs (Carroll, Patterson, Wood, Booth, Rick, & Balain, 2007; O'Donnell, 2008), as an intervention must be implemented with high fidelity to achieve optimal effectiveness.”
“Many miles to go …”: a systematic review of the implementation of patient decision support interventions into routine clinical practice (2013, neutral): “In 2006, Gravel described clinicians ’ reluctance to use patient DESIs because they did not believe that they were applicable to their patients and clinical situations [1].”