Search

This study aims to investigate the barriers and facilitators to guideline adherence for the print format of the German schizophrenia guideline as well as for the concept of a digital living guideline for the first time. For this purpose, the schizophrenia guideline was transferred to a digital guideline format within the web-based tool MAGICapp. An online survey was performed under participation of mental healthcare professionals (medical doctors, psychologists/psychotherapists, psychosocial therapists, caregivers) in 17 hospitals for psychiatry in Southern Germany and a professional association for German neurologists and psychiatrists. 524 participants opened the survey, 439 completed the demographic questions and commenced the content-related survey and 309 provided complete data sets. Results indicate a higher occurrence of knowledge-related barriers for the living guideline. The print version is associated with more attitude-related and external barriers. Older professionals reported more attitude-related barriers to a living guideline compared to younger professionals. Differences between professions regarding barriers were found for both formats. Various barriers exist for both guideline formats and a need for facilitators was expressed across professions. Many of the mentioned obstacles and facilitators can be more easily addressed with living guidelines. However, also living guidelines face barriers. Thus, the introduction of these new formats alone cannot lead to sustainable behavior change regarding guideline adherence. Yet, living guidelines seem to be a cornerstone to improved and tailored guideline implementation as they facilitate to keep recommendations up to date and to address the need of individual professional groups., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Clinical practice guidelines are crucial for enhancing healthcare quality and patient outcomes. Yet, their implementation remains inconsistent across various professions and disciplines. Previous findings on the implementation of the German guideline for schizophrenia (2019) revealed low adherence rates among healthcare professionals. Barriers to guideline adherence are multifaceted, influenced by individual, contextual, and guideline-related factors. This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of a digital guideline version compared to print/PDF formats in enhancing guideline adherence., Methods: A multicenter, cluster-randomized controlled trial was conducted in South Bavaria, Germany, involving psychologists and physicians. Participants were divided into two groups: implementation of the guideline using a digital online version via the MAGICapp platform and the other using the traditional print/PDF version. The study included a baseline assessment and a post-intervention assessment following a 6-month intervention phase. The primary outcome was guideline knowledge, which was assessed using a guideline knowledge questionnaire., Results: The study included 217 participants at baseline and 120 at post-intervention. Both groups showed significant improvements in guideline knowledge; however, no notable difference was found between both study groups regarding guideline knowledge at either time points. At baseline, 43.6% in the control group (CG) and 52.5% of the interventional group (IG) met the criterion. There was no significant difference in the primary outcome between the two groups at either time point (T0: Chi 2 (1)  = 1.65, p = 0.199, T1: Chi 2 (1)  = 0.34, p = 0.561). At post-intervention, both groups improved, with 58.2% in the CG and 63.5% in the IG meeting this criterion., Conclusions: While the study did not include a control group without any implementation strategy, the overall improvement in guideline knowledge following an implementation strategy, independent of the format, was confirmed. The digital guideline version, while not superior in enhancing knowledge, showed potential benefits in shared decision-making skills. However, familiarity with traditional formats and various barriers to digital application may have influenced these results. The study highlights the importance of tailored implementation strategies, especially for younger healthcare providers., Trial Registration: https://drks.de/search/de/trial/DRKS00028895., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

The implementation status of clinical guidelines is, despite their important role in connecting research with practice, frequently not satisfactory. This study aims to investigate the implementation status of the current German guideline for schizophrenia. Moreover, the attitude toward a living guideline has been explored for the first time by presenting screenshots of the German schizophrenia guideline transferred to a digital living guideline format called MAGICapp. A cross-sectional online survey was performed under the participation of 17 hospitals for psychiatry and psychosomatic medicine in Southern Germany and one professional association for German neurologists and psychiatrists. 439 participants supplied sufficient data for analysis. 309 provided complete data sets. Regarding the current guideline for schizophrenia and key recommendations, a large awareness-to-adherence gap was found. Group comparisons between different professions (caregivers, medical doctors, psychologists/psychotherapists, psychosocial therapists) detected differences in the implementation status showing higher awareness and agreement with the schizophrenia guideline and its key recommendations among medical doctors compared to psychosocial therapists and caregivers. Moreover, we detected differences in the implementation status of the guideline as a whole and its key recommendations between specialist and assistant doctors. The attitude toward an upcoming living guideline was mostly positive, especially among younger healthcare professionals. Our findings confirm an awareness-to-adherence gap, not only for the current schizophrenia guideline in general but also for its key recommendations with apparent differences between professions. Overall, our results show promising positive attitudes toward the living guideline for schizophrenia among healthcare providers, suggesting that a living guideline may be a supportive tool in everyday clinical practice., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Objective: The goal of living guidelines is keeping recommendations in guidelines up-to-date as new evidence becomes available. This review aims at scoping the prevalence and formal characteristics of living guidelines in the field of medicine and explore differences between formats., Methods: A selective search of living guidelines in MEDLINE via PubMed, Google Scholar and six relevant online repositories for guidelines (MAGICApp, AWMF, GIN, NICE, WHO-Iris, BIGG) was conducted. Authors and editors were contacted to receive previous non-living guideline versions. Living guidelines were subsequently analyzed according to pre-defined methodological criteria as described below (inter-comparison). Differences between living and their conventional (non-living) versions were assessed (intra-comparison)., Results: 83 living guidelines were identified and selected for further screening, out of which 26 were eligible for analysis. 61.5% were new publications (de-novo guidelines) and 38.5% updates of pre-existing guidelines. There are some concepts defining, for example, the update cycle (AWMF, maximum of 12 months) but not all living guidelines follow or refer to existing concepts. The analysis shows that living guidelines in line with the established standards for (non-living) clinical guidelines involve an evidence standard, an extensive consensus process (often in the form of a Delphi process), and the inclusion of stakeholders (patients/relatives) in the development process, despite the high frequency of updates. When comparing living and conventional guidelines with the descriptive approach changes were found in update frequency (being more frequent with living guidelines, annually at the latest) and publication format (towards more digital) and public consultation (living guidelines offered more possibilities), no substantial methodological differences were observed in the description of consensus processes, changes in number of recommendations, inclusion of patient representatives. Given the small number of comparable pairs, the results reflect a tendency in the analyzed sample., Conclusions: The definition and development of living guidelines varied. Standardization (i. e. in the form of a checklist, procedure template) is needed to assess quality of the living process., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier GmbH.)

Background: Despite high acceptance rates in the field, the implementation of the 2019 published German evidence and consensus-based S3 guideline is unsatisfactory. This study aims to assess the superiority of an adaptive online version with a better visualization of the recommendations in terms of guideline conformity, application of shared decision making, and digital health expertise compared to the classic pdf print version of the guideline., Methods: The study is a multicenter, controlled, cluster-randomized trial with two arms: one arm investigating the implementation of the German schizophrenia guideline in form of a digital format (intervention group using the evidence ecosystem MAGICapp), the other arm in form of the classic print pdf version (control group). Physicians and psychologists working in specialized hospitals will be included in the study. The guideline-knowledge before and after the intervention is defined as primary outcome measure. Secondary endpoints include digital health expertise and application of shared decision making., Discussion: This is the first study evaluating if an adaptive-digital version of the schizophrenia guideline is superior to the classic pdf print version. Therefore, the guideline is digitally prepared in the evidence-ecosystem MAGICapp, which covers the whole process of the development of a living guideline. We intend to use the results of the cluster-randomized trial for developing the German S3 guideline for schizophrenia in form of a living guideline in future., Trial Registration: The study is registered (10 May 2022) in the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) under registration number DRKS00028895 ., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Migration rates increase globally and require an adaption of national mental health services to the needs of persons with migration background. Therefore, we aimed to identify differences between persons with and without migratory background regarding (1) treatment satisfaction, (2) needed and received mental healthcare and (3) utilization of mental healthcare.In the context of a cross-sectional multicenter study, inpatients and day hospital patients of psychiatric settings in Southern Germany with severe affective and non-affective psychoses were included. Patients' satisfaction with and their use of mental healthcare services were assessed by VSSS-54 and CSSRI-EU; patients' needs were measured via CAN-EU.In total, 387 participants (migratory background: n = 72; 19%) provided sufficient responses for analyses. Migrant patients were more satisfied with the overall treatment in the past year compared to non-migrant patients. No differences between both groups were identified in met and unmet treatment needs and use of supply services (psychiatric, psychotherapeutic, and psychosocial treatment).Despite a comparable degree of met and unmet treatment needs and mental health service use among migrants and non-migrants, patients with migration background showed higher overall treatment satisfaction compared to non-migrants. The role of sociocultural and migrant-related factors may explain our findings., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Clinical guidelines can facilitate the transfer of scientific evidence into clinical practice, yet their implementation still faces difficulties. The aim of this study was to examine the implementation status of the current German evidence- and consensus-based guidelines for schizophrenia (2019) and psychosocial therapies (2019) and to identify barriers as well as facilitators in guideline adherence., Methods: We used a quantitative approach by developing an online questionnaire, focusing on the current implementation status as well as barriers and facilitators in guideline adherence. The questionnaire was sent to 100 hospitals for psychiatry and psychosomatics and 52 professional associations in mental healthcare in Germany (investigation period: 10/2019-01/2020)., Results: In total, 657 mental healthcare professionals (MHCP, e.g. medical doctors, psychologists, psychosocial therapists, caregivers) provided sufficient responses for analyses. Less than half (47%) of our participants were aware of the existence of the guideline for psychosocial therapies, while 74% exhibited awareness of the schizophrenia guideline. A minority reported to adhere to the current guidelines for schizophrenia (41%) and psychosocial interventions (18%). Profession-related differences in the implementation-status were detected. Specifically, medical doctors exhibited higher awareness rates than psychosocial therapists and caregivers and additionally higher adherence rates than psychologists and caregivers. Medical doctors were less exposed to knowledge-related barriers (e.g. lack of guideline familiarity), while no differences across professions were found in external/behavior-related barriers (e.g. long versions)., Discussion and Conclusion: Our findings indicate that the implementation of guidelines as well as related barriers vary between professions. To prevent a growing gap in guideline adherence between MHCP, target-specific implementation strategies should be considered., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Gabriele Gaigl, Esther Täumer, Katharina Merz, Sabina Zöscher, Sarah Wagner and Markus Kösters report no conflicts of interest. Peter Falkai was honorary speaker for Janssen-Cilag, Astra-Zeneca, Eli Lilly, Bristol Myers-Squibb, Lundbeck, Pfizer, Bayer Vital, SmithKline Beecham, Wyeth, and Essex. During the last 5 years, he was a member of the advisory boards of Janssen-Cilag, Astra-Zeneca, Eli Lilly, and Lundbeck. Presently, he is a member of the advisory boards of Richter Pharma, Abbot, and Otsuka. Stefan Leucht has received in the last 3 years honoraria for service as a consultant or adviser and/or for lectures from Angelini, Böhringer Ingelheim, Geodon&Richter, Janssen, Johnson&Johnson, Lundbeck, LTS Lohmann, MSD, Otsuka, Recordati, SanofiAventis, Sandoz, Sunovion, TEVA. Alkomiet Hasan has been invited to scientific meetings by Lundbeck, Janssen, and Pfizer, and he received paid speakerships from Desitin, Janssen, Otsuka, and Lundbeck. He was member of Roche, Otsuka, Lundbeck, and Janssen advisory boards., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)