↓ Skip to main content

Effectiveness of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies on health care professionals’ behaviour and patient outcomes in the cancer care context: a systematic review protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 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
Effectiveness of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies on health care professionals’ behaviour and patient outcomes in the cancer care context: a systematic review protocol
Published in
Systematic Reviews, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13643-015-0100-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennifer R. Tomasone, Rushil Chaudhary, Melissa C. Brouwers

Abstract

Health care professionals (HCPs) are able to make effective decisions regarding patient care through the use of systematically developed clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). These recommendations are especially important in a cancer health care context as patients are exposed to a multitude of interdisciplinary HCPs offering high-quality care throughout diagnosis, treatment, survivorship and palliative care. Although a large number of CPGs targeted towards cancer are widely disseminated, it is unknown whether implementation strategies targeting the use of these guidelines are effective in effecting HCP behaviour and patient outcomes in the cancer care context. The purpose of this systematic review will be to determine the effectiveness of different CPG dissemination and implementation interventions on HCPs' behaviour and patient outcomes in the cancer health care context. Five electronic databases (CINAHL, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE via Ovid, EMBASE via Ovid and PsycINFO via Ovid) will be searched to include all studies examining the dissemination and/or implementation of CPGs in a cancer care setting targeting all HCPs. CPG implementation strategies will be included if the CPGs were systematically developed (e.g. literature review/evidence-informed, expert panel, evidence appraisal). The studies will be limited to randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials and quasi-experimental (interrupted time series, controlled before-and-after designs) studies. Two independent reviewers will assess articles for eligibility, data extraction and quality appraisal. The aim of this review is to inform cancer care health care professionals and policymakers about evidence-based implementation strategies that will allow for effective use of CPGs. PROSPERO CRD42015019331.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Peru 1 3%
Canada 1 3%
Brazil 1 3%
Unknown 36 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 18%
Researcher 5 13%
Other 5 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 10%
Student > Postgraduate 3 8%
Other 12 31%
Unknown 3 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 15%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 5%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 7 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 05 May 2016.
All research outputs
#6,626,064
of 7,657,182 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#561
of 608 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#190,453
of 228,956 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#29
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,657,182 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 608 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 228,956 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.