Are clinical practice guidelines valid for primary care?
| Autor: | Paul A. James, Robin P. Graham, Timothy M. Cowan |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2000 |
| Předmět: |
Heart Failure
medicine.medical_specialty Primary Health Care Epidemiology business.industry media_common.quotation_subject Public health MEDLINE Reproducibility of Results Guideline Primary care External validity Nursing Practice Guidelines as Topic Humans Medicine Generalizability theory Quality (business) Internal validity business media_common |
| Zdroj: | Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 53:949-954 |
| ISSN: | 0895-4356 |
| DOI: | 10.1016/s0895-4356(99)00224-3 |
| Popis: | Development of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines has emphasized treatment efficacy under methodologically rigorous conditions; internal validity (i.e., efficacy) has been assessed well. Despite their experimental foundations, guidelines originally were considered physician education tools relevant to singular, idealized encounters. Now, in rushing to generalize, quantify, and regulate quality, guidelines are being applied to whole populations as quality review criteria. Clinical guidelines do not make operational how, or even make clear whether they should be so used. We studied the external validity, the generalizability and measurability for primary care, of a guideline for treatment of systolic heart failure. Patient and clinical factors reducing generalizability were examined. Imprecise definition and reliance on single measures of recommendations were studied as limits to measurability. Patient, physician, organizational, and system factors influenced guideline validity. Attention to myriad invalidity sources undermining implementation and evaluation of efforts to improve quality and outcomes of primary care is critical. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
Full Text from ScienceDirect