Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://www.arca.fiocruz.br/handle/icict/65965
Type
ArticleCopyright
Open access
Sustainable Development Goals
03 Saúde e Bem-EstarCollections
Metadata
Show full item record
MODELS AND FRAMEWORKS FOR ASSESSING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Implementation
Practice guideline
Models
Frameworks
Assessment
Evidence-based practice
Healthcare
Implementation science
Author
Affilliation
Ministry of Health of Brazil. Department of Management and Incorporation of Health Technologies. Brasília, DF, Brasil / Universidade de Brasília. Faculdade de Ciências da Saúde. Programa de Pós-Graduação em Saúde Coletiva. Brasília, DF, Brasil.
Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto René Rachou. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brasil.
Ministry of Health of Brazil. Department of Management and Incorporation of Health Technologies. Brasília, DF, Brasil / Universidade de Brasília. Faculdade de Ciências da Saúde. Programa de Pós-Graduação em Saúde Coletiva. Brasília, DF, Brasil.
Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Fiocruz Brasília. Brasília, DF, Brasil.
Universidade de Brasília. Faculdade de Ciências da Saúde. Programa de Pós-Graduação em Saúde Coletiva. Brasília, DF, Brasil / Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Fiocruz Brasília. Brasília, DF, Brasil.
Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto René Rachou. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brasil.
Ministry of Health of Brazil. Department of Management and Incorporation of Health Technologies. Brasília, DF, Brasil / Universidade de Brasília. Faculdade de Ciências da Saúde. Programa de Pós-Graduação em Saúde Coletiva. Brasília, DF, Brasil.
Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Fiocruz Brasília. Brasília, DF, Brasil.
Universidade de Brasília. Faculdade de Ciências da Saúde. Programa de Pós-Graduação em Saúde Coletiva. Brasília, DF, Brasil / Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Fiocruz Brasília. Brasília, DF, Brasil.
Abstract
Background: The implementation of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) is a cyclical process in which the evaluation stage can facilitate continuous improvement. Implementation science has utilized theoretical approaches, such as models and frameworks, to understand and address this process. This article aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the models and frameworks used to assess the implementation of CPGs. Methods: A systematic review was conducted following the Cochrane methodology, with adaptations to the "selection process" due to the unique nature of this review. The findings were reported following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) reporting guidelines. Electronic databases were searched from their inception until May 15, 2023. A predetermined strategy and manual searches were conducted to identify relevant documents from health institutions worldwide. Eligible studies presented models and frameworks for assessing the implementation of CPGs. Information on the characteristics of the documents, the context in which the models were used (specific objectives, level of use, type of health service, target group), and the characteristics of each model or framework (name, domain evaluated, and model limitations) were extracted. The domains of the models were analyzed according to the key constructs: strategies, context, outcomes, fidelity, adaptation, sustainability, process, and intervention. A subgroup analysis was performed grouping models and frameworks according to their levels of use (clinical, organizational, and policy) and type of health service (community, ambulatorial, hospital, institutional). The JBI’s critical appraisal tools were utilized by two independent researchers to assess the trustworthiness, relevance, and results of the included studies. Results: Database searches yielded 14,395 studies, of which 80 full texts were reviewed. Eight studies were included in the data analysis and four methodological guidelines were additionally included from the manual search. The risk of bias in the studies was considered non-critical for the results of this systematic review. A total of ten models/frameworks for assessing the implementation of CPGs were found. The level of use was mainly policy, the most common type of health service was institutional, and the major target group was professionals directly involved in clinical practice. The evaluated domains differed between the models and there were also differences in their conceptualization. All the models addressed the domain "Context", especially at the micro level (8/12), followed by the multilevel (7/12). The domains "Outcome" (9/12), "Intervention" (8/12), "Strategies" (7/12), and "Process" (5/12) were frequently addressed, while "Sustainability" was found only in one study, and "Fidelity/Adaptation" was not observed. Conclusions: The use of models and frameworks for assessing the implementation of CPGs is still incipient. This systematic review may help stakeholders choose or adapt the most appropriate model or framework to assess CPGs implementation based on their specific health context. Trial registration: PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) registration number: CRD42022335884. Registered on June 7, 2022.
Keywords
Systematic reviewImplementation
Practice guideline
Models
Frameworks
Assessment
Evidence-based practice
Healthcare
Implementation science
Share