Clinicians' attitudes and perceived barriers and facilitators to cancer treatment clinical practice guideline adherence: a systematic review of qualitative and quantitative literature.
Clinical Practice Guidelines
Evidence-based practice
Guideline adherent treatment
Implementation Science
Oncology
Journal
Implementation science : IS
ISSN: 1748-5908
Titre abrégé: Implement Sci
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101258411
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
27 05 2020
27 05 2020
Historique:
received:
10
12
2019
accepted:
14
04
2020
entrez:
29
5
2020
pubmed:
29
5
2020
medline:
25
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) synthesize the best available evidence to guide clinician and patient decision making. There are a multitude of barriers and facilitators to clinicians adhering to CPGs; however, little is known about active cancer treatment CPG adherence specifically. This systematic review sought to identify clinician attitudes, and perceived barriers and facilitators to active cancer treatment CPG adherence. A systematic search was undertaken of five databases; Ovid Medline, PsychInfo, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, and PROQUEST. The retrieved abstracts were screened for eligibility against inclusion criteria, and a full text review was conducted of all eligible studies. Data were extracted, and a quality assessment was conducted of all included studies. The qualitative papers were thematically analyzed. Attitudes, barriers, and facilitating factors extracted from the quantitative papers were categorized within the qualitative thematic framework. The search resulted in the identification of 9676 titles. After duplicates were removed, abstracts screened, and full texts reviewed, 15 studies were included. Four themes were identified which related to negative clinician attitudes and barriers to active cancer treatment CPG adherence: (1) concern over CPG content and currency of CPGs; (2) concern about the evidence underpinning CPGs; (3) clinician uncertainty and negative perceptions of CPGs; and (4) organizational and patient factors. The review also identified four themes related to positive attitudes and facilitators to active cancer treatment CPG adherence: (5) CPG accessibility and ease of use; (6) endorsement and dissemination of CPGs and adequate access to treatment facilities and resources; (7) awareness of CPGs and belief in their relevance; and (8) belief that CPGs support decision making, improve patient care, reduce clinical variation, and reduce costs. These results highlight that adherence to active cancer treatment CPG recommendations by oncology clinicians is influenced by multiple factors such as attitudes, practices, and access to resources. The review has also revealed many similarities and differences in the factors associated with general CPG, and active cancer treatment CPG, adherence. These findings will inform tailored implementation strategies to increase adherence to cancer treatment CPGs. PROSPERO (2019) CRD42019125748.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) synthesize the best available evidence to guide clinician and patient decision making. There are a multitude of barriers and facilitators to clinicians adhering to CPGs; however, little is known about active cancer treatment CPG adherence specifically. This systematic review sought to identify clinician attitudes, and perceived barriers and facilitators to active cancer treatment CPG adherence.
METHODS
A systematic search was undertaken of five databases; Ovid Medline, PsychInfo, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, and PROQUEST. The retrieved abstracts were screened for eligibility against inclusion criteria, and a full text review was conducted of all eligible studies. Data were extracted, and a quality assessment was conducted of all included studies. The qualitative papers were thematically analyzed. Attitudes, barriers, and facilitating factors extracted from the quantitative papers were categorized within the qualitative thematic framework.
RESULTS
The search resulted in the identification of 9676 titles. After duplicates were removed, abstracts screened, and full texts reviewed, 15 studies were included. Four themes were identified which related to negative clinician attitudes and barriers to active cancer treatment CPG adherence: (1) concern over CPG content and currency of CPGs; (2) concern about the evidence underpinning CPGs; (3) clinician uncertainty and negative perceptions of CPGs; and (4) organizational and patient factors. The review also identified four themes related to positive attitudes and facilitators to active cancer treatment CPG adherence: (5) CPG accessibility and ease of use; (6) endorsement and dissemination of CPGs and adequate access to treatment facilities and resources; (7) awareness of CPGs and belief in their relevance; and (8) belief that CPGs support decision making, improve patient care, reduce clinical variation, and reduce costs.
CONCLUSION
These results highlight that adherence to active cancer treatment CPG recommendations by oncology clinicians is influenced by multiple factors such as attitudes, practices, and access to resources. The review has also revealed many similarities and differences in the factors associated with general CPG, and active cancer treatment CPG, adherence. These findings will inform tailored implementation strategies to increase adherence to cancer treatment CPGs.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO (2019) CRD42019125748.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32460797
doi: 10.1186/s13012-020-00991-3
pii: 10.1186/s13012-020-00991-3
pmc: PMC7251711
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
39Références
J Geriatr Oncol. 2014 Jul;5(3):323-30
pubmed: 24656735
CMAJ. 1997 Aug 15;157(4):408-16
pubmed: 9275952
Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2007;4(4):210-9
pubmed: 18076464
Int J Qual Health Care. 2010 Jun;22(3):187-93
pubmed: 20410047
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2014 Feb;12(2):204-12
pubmed: 24586082
Am J Surg. 2006 Oct;192(4):525-7
pubmed: 16978966
Cancer. 2009 Dec 1;115(23):5579-88
pubmed: 19711462
Implement Sci. 2009 Aug 12;4:54
pubmed: 19674440
Patient Educ Couns. 2019 Feb;102(2):284-290
pubmed: 30262401
Asia Pac J Clin Oncol. 2017 Oct;13(5):e373-e380
pubmed: 27726297
J Eval Clin Pract. 2018 Feb;24(1):135-144
pubmed: 28474459
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2008 Sep 12;8:38
pubmed: 18789150
Evid Based Med. 2017 Aug;22(4):120-122
pubmed: 28720642
Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Jun;121(6):1226-34
pubmed: 23812456
Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2018 Dec;16(6):e1159-e1169
pubmed: 30190222
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097
pubmed: 19621072
J Eval Clin Pract. 2018 Feb;24(1):117-126
pubmed: 28371050
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2010 Oct;36(10):949-56
pubmed: 20724103
Radiother Oncol. 2018 Nov;129(2):191-195
pubmed: 29983259
Ann Oncol. 2006 Apr;17(4):691-701
pubmed: 16461333
J Glob Oncol. 2018 Sep;4:1-6
pubmed: 30241267
BMC Health Serv Res. 2012 Mar 28;12:82
pubmed: 22455759
BMJ. 2015 Jan 02;350:g7647
pubmed: 25555855
Oncology. 2000 Nov;59(4):283-90
pubmed: 11096339
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017 Jul 15;98(4):748-757
pubmed: 28366580
J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2013 Aug;24(3):1180-93
pubmed: 23974390
Soc Sci Med. 2009 Jan;68(1):192-200
pubmed: 19010576
BMJ. 2014 Nov 21;349:g6501
pubmed: 25416499
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005 Jan;10(1):45-53
pubmed: 15667704
J Cancer Educ. 2018 Dec;33(6):1195-1200
pubmed: 28573519
Med Care. 1991 Jan;29(1):50-63
pubmed: 1986177
Healthcare (Basel). 2016 Jun 29;4(3):
pubmed: 27417624
JAMA. 1999 May 26;281(20):1900-5
pubmed: 10349893
J Clin Epidemiol. 2005 Feb;58(2):107-12
pubmed: 15680740
Clin Breast Cancer. 2015 Aug;15(4):e189-95
pubmed: 25913904
BMC Cancer. 2017 Nov 21;17(1):780
pubmed: 29162047
Breast. 2003 Apr;12(2):136-41
pubmed: 14659343
Med Care. 2001 Aug;39(8 Suppl 2):II46-54
pubmed: 11583121
Implement Sci. 2014 Mar 22;9(1):36
pubmed: 24655753
Med J Aust. 2002 Nov 4;177(9):502-6
pubmed: 12405894
Implement Sci. 2009 Aug 07;4:50
pubmed: 19664226
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008 Jul 10;8:45
pubmed: 18616818
JAMA. 1999 Oct 20;282(15):1458-65
pubmed: 10535437
J Eval Clin Pract. 2007 Aug;13(4):607-15
pubmed: 17683303
BMJ Open. 2020 Mar 23;10(3):e035448
pubmed: 32205377
Int J Nurs Stud. 2012 Jan;49(1):47-53
pubmed: 21835406
BJU Int. 2016 Apr;117 Suppl 4:35-44
pubmed: 25585989
J Clin Oncol. 2012 Mar 20;30(9):972-9
pubmed: 22355049
BMC Health Serv Res. 2012 Dec 13;12:455
pubmed: 23234504
J Oncol Pract. 2012 Jul;8(4):253-9
pubmed: 23180992
Singapore Med J. 2005 Dec;46(12):681-6; quiz 687
pubmed: 16308640
Crit Care Med. 2013 Jan;41(1):15-23
pubmed: 23222254
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2016 Oct;28(10):639-47
pubmed: 27211609
Soc Sci Med. 1996 Oct;43(8):1283-7
pubmed: 8903133
Breast. 2016 Oct;29:126-31
pubmed: 27484016
CMAJ. 2010 Feb 9;182(2):E78-84
pubmed: 19969563
Ann Oncol. 2013 Jun;24(6):1685-91
pubmed: 23446092
Med J Aust. 1998 Sep 21;169(6):300-5
pubmed: 9785524
Med J Aust. 2003 Apr 7;178(7):354-5; author reply 355; discussion 355-6
pubmed: 12670285
Adv Ther. 2018 Nov;35(11):1763-1774
pubmed: 30357570
J Clin Epidemiol. 1993 May;46(5):423-9
pubmed: 8501467
Health Technol Assess. 2004 Feb;8(6):iii-iv, 1-72
pubmed: 14960256
ANZ J Surg. 2001 Mar;71(3):147-53
pubmed: 11277143
Med J Aust. 1997 Oct 6;167(7):362-5
pubmed: 9379976
BMJ. 2004 Oct 30;329(7473):1013
pubmed: 15514347
Health Technol Assess. 2010 Feb;14(8):iii, ix-xi, 1-193
pubmed: 20181324