Exploring the use and impact of the Australian living guidelines for the clinical care of people with COVID-19: where to from here?

被引:1
作者
Millard, Tanya [1 ]
Elliott, Julian H. [1 ]
Green, Sally [1 ]
McGloughlin, Steve [1 ]
Turner, Tari [1 ]
机构
[1] Monash Univ, Sch Publ Hlth & Prevent Med, Level 4,553 St Kilda Rd, Melbourne, Vic 3004, Australia
关键词
COVID-19; Impact evaluation; Living evidence; Living guidelines; Mixed-methods; Australia;
D O I
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.111234
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Objectives: The Australian National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce has been developing, maintaining, and disseminating living guidelines and decision support tools (clinical flowcharts) for the care of people with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 since 2020. Living guidelines, a form of living evidence, are a relatively new approach; hence, more work is required to determine how to optimize their use to inform practice, policy, and decision-making and to explore implementation, uptake, and impact implications. An update of an earlier impact evaluation was conducted to understand sustained awareness and use of the guidelines; the factors that facilitate the widespread adoption of the guidelines and to explore the perceived strengths and opportunities for improvement of the guidelines. Study Design and Setting: A mixed-methods impact evaluation was conducted. Surveys collected both quantitative and qualitative data and were supplemented with qualitative interviews. Participants included Australian healthcare practitioners providing care to individuals with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 and people involved in policy-making. Data were collected on awareness, use, impact, strengths, and opportunities for improvement of the guidelines and flow charts. Results: A total of 148 participants completed the survey and 21 people were interviewed between January and March 2022. Awareness of the work of the Taskforce was high and more than 75% of participants reported that the guidelines were used within their workplace. Participants described the Taskforce website and guidelines as trustworthy, valuable, and reliable sources of up-to-date evidence-based information. The evaluation highlighted the varied ways the guidelines were being used across a range of settings and the diverse impacts they have from those at a clinical level to impacts at a policy level. Barriers to and enablers of impact and uptake of the guideline were explored. Conclusion: This evaluation highlights the value of living guidelines during a pandemic when the evidence base is rapidly changing and expanding. It presents useful understanding of the ways clinicians and others use living evidence to inform their clinical practice and decision-making and the diverse impacts the guidelines are having around Australia.(c) 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
引用
收藏
页数:12
相关论文
共 15 条
  • [1] Living systematic reviews: 4. Living guideline recommendations
    Akl, Elie A.
    Meerpohl, Joerg J.
    Elliott, Julian
    Kahale, Lara A.
    Schuenemann, Holger J.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2017, 91 : 47 - 53
  • [2] [Anonymous], 2018, NVivo qualitative data analysis software
  • [3] Why so many "rigorous" evaluations fail to identify unintended consequences of development programs: How mixed methods can contribute
    Bamberger, Michael
    Tarsilla, Michele
    Hesse-Biber, Sharlene
    [J]. EVALUATION AND PROGRAM PLANNING, 2016, 55 : 155 - 162
  • [4] Decision makers need 'living' evidence synthesis
    Elliott, Julian
    Lawrence, Rebecca
    Minx, Jan C.
    Oladapo, Olufemi T.
    Ravaud, Philippe
    Jeppesen, Britta Tendal
    Thomas, James
    Turner, Tari
    Vandvik, Per Olav
    Grimshaw, Jeremy M.
    [J]. NATURE, 2021, 600 (7889) : 383 - 385
  • [5] Global Commission on Evidence to Address Societal Challenges, 2022, EV COMM REP WAK UP C
  • [6] Feasibility of national living guideline methods: The Australian Stroke Guidelines
    Hill, Kelvin
    English, Coralie
    Campbell, Bruce C., V
    McDonald, Steve
    Pattuwage, Loyal
    Bates, Peta
    Lassig, Chris
    Turner, Tari
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2022, 142 : 184 - 193
  • [7] A living WHO guideline on drugs for covid-19
    Lamontagne, Francois
    Agoritsas, Thomas
    Macdonald, Helen
    Leo, Yee-Sin
    Diaz, Janet
    Agarwal, Arnav
    Appiah, John Adabie
    Arabi, Yaseen
    Blumberg, Lucille
    Calfee, Carolyn S.
    Cao, Bin
    Cecconi, Maurizio
    Cooke, Graham
    Dunning, Jake
    Geduld, Heike
    Gee, Patrick
    Manai, Hela
    Hui, David S.
    Kanda, Seema
    Kawano-Dourado, Leticia
    Kim, Yae-Jean
    Kissoon, Niranjan
    Kwizera, Arthur
    Laake, Jon Henrik
    Machado, Flavia R.
    Qadir, Nida
    Sarin, Rohit
    Shen, Yinzhong
    Zeng, Linan
    Brignardello-Petersen, Romina
    Lytvyn, Lyubov
    Siemieniuk, Reed
    Zeraatkar, Dena
    Bartoszko, Jessica
    Ge, Long
    Maguire, Brittany
    Rochwerg, Bram
    Guyatt, Gordon
    Vandvik, Per Olav
    [J]. BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2020, 370
  • [8] A Framework for the Development of Living Practice Guidelines in Health Care
    Mikati, Ibrahim K. El
    Khabsa, Joanne
    Harb, Tarek
    Khamis, Mohamed
    Agarwal, Arnav
    Pardo-Hernandez, Hector
    Farran, Sarah
    Khamis, Assem M.
    El Zein, Ola
    El-Khoury, Rayane
    Schunemann, Holger J.
    Akl, Elie A.
    [J]. ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2022, 175 (08) : 1154 - +
  • [9] Awareness, value and use of the Australian living guidelines for the clinical care of people with COVID-19: an impact evaluation
    Millard, Tanya
    Elliott, Julian H.
    Green, Sally
    Tendal, Britta
    Vogel, Joshua P.
    Norris, Sarah
    Tate, Rhiannon
    Turner, Tari
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2022, 143 : 11 - 21
  • [10] Mixed Method Designs in Implementation Research
    Palinkas, Lawrence A.
    Aarons, Gregory A.
    Horwitz, Sarah
    Chamberlain, Patricia
    Hurlburt, Michael
    Landsverk, John
    [J]. ADMINISTRATION AND POLICY IN MENTAL HEALTH AND MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH, 2011, 38 (01) : 44 - 53