↓ Skip to main content

What drives junior doctors to use clinical practice guidelines? A national cross-sectional survey of foundation doctors in England

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 Mendeley
Title
What drives junior doctors to use clinical practice guidelines? A national cross-sectional survey of foundation doctors in England & Wales
Published in
BMC Medical Education, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12909-015-0510-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Logan Manikam, Andrew Hoy, Hannah Fosker, Martin Ho Yin Wong, Jay Banerjee, Monica Lakhanpaul, Alec Knight, Peter Littlejohns

Abstract

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) aim to improve patient care, but their use remains variable. We explored attitudes that influence CPG use amongst newly qualified doctors. A self-completed, anonymous questionnaire was sent to all Foundation Doctors in England and Wales between December 2012 and May 2013. We included questions designed to measure the 11 domains of the validated Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). We correlated these responses to questions assessing current and future intention to use CPGs. A total of 13,138 doctors were invited of which 1698 (13 %) responded. 1,035 (62.5 %) reported regular CPG use with 575 (34.4 %) applying CPGs 2-3 times per week. A significant minority of 606 (36.6 %) declared an inability to critically appraise evidence. Despite efforts to design a questionnaire that captured the domains of the TDF, the domain scales created had low internal reliability. Using previously published studies and input from an expert statistical group, an alternative model was sought using exploratory factor analysis. Five alternative domains were identified. These were judged to represent: "confidence", "familiarity", "commitment and duty", "time" and "perceived benefits". Using regression analyses, the first three were noted as consistent predictors of both current and future intentions to use CPGs in decreasing strength order. In this large survey of newly qualified doctors, "confidence", "familiarity" and "commitment and duty" were identified as domains that influence use of CPGs in frontline practice. Additionally, a significant minority were not confident in critically appraising evidence. Our findings suggest a number of approaches that may be taken to improve junior doctors' commitment to CPGs through processes that increase their confidence and familiarity in using CPGs. Despite limitations of a self-reported survey and potential non-response bias, these findings are from a large representative sample and a review of existing implementation strategies may be warranted based on these findings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 60 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 15%
Researcher 6 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Other 16 26%
Unknown 9 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 18%
Psychology 4 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 13 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 January 2016.
All research outputs
#13,758,856
of 22,837,982 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,827
of 3,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,470
of 389,448 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#36
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,837,982 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 389,448 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.