gms | German Medical Science

G-I-N Conference 2012

Guidelines International Network

22.08 - 25.08.2012, Berlin

Survey: Prioritization of clinical practice guideline topics

Meeting Abstract

  • M. Haensel, MPH - Department of Primary Medical Care, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
  • M. Beyer - Department of Primary Medical Care, Johann Wolfgang Goethe University Medical Ce, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
  • A. Wollny - Department of Primary Medical Care, University of Rostock, Rostock, Germany
  • M. Scherer - Department of Primary Medical Care, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany

Guidelines International Network. G-I-N Conference 2012. Berlin, 22.-25.08.2012. Düsseldorf: German Medical Science GMS Publishing House; 2012. DocP093

DOI: 10.3205/12gin205, URN: urn:nbn:de:0183-12gin2052

Veröffentlicht: 10. Juli 2012

© 2012 Haensel, MPH et al.
Dieser Artikel ist ein Open Access-Artikel und steht unter den Creative Commons Lizenzbedingungen (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/deed.de). Er darf vervielfältigt, verbreitet und öffentlich zugänglich gemacht werden, vorausgesetzt dass Autor und Quelle genannt werden.


Gliederung

Text

Background: The first step of guideline development should always be identifying priority topics because resources required to produce and disseminate guidelines have to be expended carefully.

Objectives: The aim of our study was to perform a survey of DEGAM (German College of General Practitioners) members regarding prioritization criteria and future guideline topics. Involving the GPs in the process of guideline development should also create attention to guidelines and promote implementation.

Methods: Based on our literature research we designed a self-administered questionnaire. The realisation of the survey was effected via an online platform giving us the opportunity to organize and release the survey by an explicit web-address and to analyse the results.

Results: 2167 e-mails with an invitation to participate in the survey were sent and 386 questionnaires were returned (response rate 18%). Most of the participants agreed to consider the frequency of consultations (95%), the prevalence (86%), the individual (84%) and the general burden (82%) concerning a specific health problem within the prioritization process. One fifth quoted topics related to diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders with respect to future guideline themes.

Discussion: It is feasible to gather GPs´ opinions pertaining to the prioritization process and to potential guideline topics by performing an internet-based survey. However, lack of time prevented many GPs from responding to our survey.

Implication for guideline developers/users: Due to the specific situation of GPs in clinical practice, the development of priority and guideline topics should be based on the cooperation of a broader circle of stakeholders.