↓ Skip to main content

To adopt, to adapt, or to contextualise? The big question in clinical practice guideline development

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
59 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
108 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
To adopt, to adapt, or to contextualise? The big question in clinical practice guideline development
Published in
BMC Research Notes, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13104-016-2244-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Janine Margarita Dizon, Shingai Machingaidze, Karen Grimmer

Abstract

Developing new clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) can be time-consuming and expensive. A more efficient approach could be to adopt, adapt or contextualise recommendations from existing good quality CPGs so that the resultant guidance is tailored to the local context. The first steps are to search for international CPGs that have a similar purpose, end-users and patients to your situation. The second step is to critically appraise the methodological quality of the CPGs to ensure that your guidance is based on credible evidence. Then the decisions begin. Can you simply 'adopt' this (parent) clinical practice guidelines, and implement the recommendations in their entirety, without any changes, in your setting? If so, then no further work is required. However this situation is rare. What is more likely, is that even if recommendations from the parent clinical practice guidelines can be adopted, how they are implemented needs to address local issues. Thus you may need to 'contextualise' the guidance, by addressing implementation issues such as local workforce, training, health systems, equipment and/or access to services. Generally this means that additional information is required (Practice/Context Points) to support effective implementation of the clinical practice guidelines recommendations. In some cases, you may need to 'adapt' the guidance, where you will make changes to the recommendations so that care is relevant to your local environments. This may involve additional work to search for local research, or obtain local consensus, regarding how best to adapt recommendations. For example, adaptation might reflect substituting one drug for another (drugs have similar effects, but the alternative drug to the recommended one may be cheaper, more easily obtained or more culturally acceptable). There is lack of standardisation of clinical practice guidelines terminology, leading clinical practice guideline activities often being poorly conceptualised or reported. We provide an approach that would help improve efficiency and standardisation of clinical practice guidelines activities.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 107 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 12%
Researcher 11 10%
Student > Bachelor 9 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Other 21 19%
Unknown 26 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 18%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 6%
Social Sciences 6 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Other 12 11%
Unknown 32 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 07 November 2018.
All research outputs
#4,088,533
of 22,888,307 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#614
of 4,270 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,607
of 322,148 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#9
of 69 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,888,307 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,270 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 322,148 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 69 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.