Artikel
Clinical Practice Guidelines-Related Knowledge, Attitudes, Behavior, and Practices: A Comprehensive Email Survey of all Chinese guideline developers
Suche in Medline nach
Autoren
-
Y. Chen
- Evidence Based Medicine Center of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China; Chinese GRADE Center, Lanzhou, China
-
T. Wang
- Evidence Based Medicine Center of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China
-
Q. Wang
- Evidence Based Medicine Center of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China
-
B. Yuan
- Evidence Based Medicine Center of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China
-
L. Yao
- Chinese GRADE Center, Lanzhou, China
-
M. Chen
- Evidence Based Medicine Center of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China
-
F. Xu
- Evidence Based Medicine Center of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China
-
L. Fan
- Evidence Based Medicine Center of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China
-
M. Wang
- Chinese GRADE Center, Lanzhou, China
-
K. Yang
- Evidence Based Medicine Center of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China; Chinese GRADE Center, Lanzhou, China
| Veröffentlicht: | 10. Juli 2012 |
|---|
Gliederung
Text
Background: Guideline developers play a key role in the development and implementation of Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), however, there is little survey data about guideline developers' knowledge, attitudes, behaviors and practices(KABP).
Objective: To investigate the KABP of guideline developers relating to design, development, costs, conflicts of interest, implications of CPGs in China.
Methods: First, to identify Chinese CPGs, a systematic search of relevant literature databases (CBM, WANFANG, VIP, CNKI) was performed for the period January 1978 to December 2010. Second, to email all guideline developers and send them questionnaires.
Results: We identified 369 guidelines and sent 980 emails. Preliminary results showed that most Chinese guidelines were developed by 11~20 people (33%) and cost less than 10 000$ (24%), took about 13~18 months (38%) and frequently updated 3~4 years (58%). 57% of guidelines developers reported that they used systemic reviews in their guidelines. 71% of guidelines developers reported that they graded evidence and 62% graded recommendations. The source of financial support of guidelines came from pharmaceutical companies (38%), government (19%) and self-finance(19%). The main factor impacted guidelines was the quality of evidence (43%). The top barrier of implementation of CPGs was that clinicians didn't pay much attention to CPGs (67%).
Conclusion: Scientific and transparent method and systematic reviews are taken increasingly seriously by Chinese guideline developers, however, too much financing from pharmaceutical companies and too little funding from government and public might become potential obstacles in the development and implications of CPGs in China.
