↓ Skip to main content

The use of clinical practice guidelines in primary care: professional mindlines and control mechanisms

Overview of attention for article published in Gaceta Sanitaria, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The use of clinical practice guidelines in primary care: professional mindlines and control mechanisms
Published in
Gaceta Sanitaria, September 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.gaceta.2016.01.005
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joan Gené-Badia, Pedro Gallo, Jordi Caïs, Emília Sánchez, Carme Carrion, Liliana Arroyo, Marta Aymerich

Abstract

To identify the relevant barriers and enablers perceived by primary care professionals in implementing the recommendations of clinical practice guidelines (CPG). Two focus groups were conducted with primary care physicians and nurses in Catalonia (Spain) between October and December 2012. Thirty-nine health professionals were selected based on their knowledge and daily use of CPG. Finally, eight general practitioners and eight nurses were included in the discussion groups. Participants were asked to share their views and beliefs on the accessibility of CPG, their knowledge and use of these documents, the content and format of CPG, dissemination strategy, training, professional-patient relationship, and the use of CPG by the management structure. We recorded and transcribed the content verbatim and analysed the data using qualitative analysis techniques. Physicians believed that, overall, CPG were of little practical use and frequently referred to them as a largely bureaucratic management control instrument that threatened their professional autonomy. In contrast, nurses believed that CPG were rather helpful tools in their day-to-day practice, although they would like them to be more sensitive to the current role of nurses. Both groups believed that CPG did not provide a response to most of the decisions they faced in the primary care setting. Compliance with CPG recommendations would be improved if these documents were brief, non-compulsory, not cost-containment oriented, more based on nursing care models, sensitive to the specific needs of primary care patients, and integrated into the computer workstation.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 17%
Lecturer 2 11%
Student > Bachelor 1 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 5 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 5 28%
Arts and Humanities 2 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 11%
Philosophy 1 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 6 33%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 30 March 2017.
All research outputs
#6,652,477
of 12,519,100 outputs
Outputs from Gaceta Sanitaria
#215
of 479 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,542
of 262,187 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Gaceta Sanitaria
#6
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,519,100 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 479 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
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 262,187 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.