Back to Search Start Over

The impact of a digital guideline version on schizophrenia guideline knowledge: results from a multicenter cluster-randomized controlled trial

Authors :
Theresa Halms
Gabriele Gaigl
Carolin Lorenz
Duygu Güler
Naiiri Khorikian-Ghazari
Astrid Röh
Angelika Burschinski
Wolfgang Gaebel
Marisa Flick
Charline Pielenz
Eva Salveridou-Hof
Thomas Schneider-Axmann
Marco Schneider
Elias Wagner
Peter Falkai
Susanne Lucae
Michael Rentrop
Peter Zwanzger
Florian Seemüller
Michael Landgrebe
Marion Ortner
Bertram Schneeweiß
Peter Brieger
Klemens Ajayi
Michael Schwarz
Stephan Heres
Nicolay Marstrander
Thomas Becker
Markus Jäger
Albert Putzhammer
Karel Frasch
Raimund Steber
Stefan Leucht
Alkomiet Hasan
Source :
BMC Medicine, Vol 22, Iss 1, Pp 1-11 (2024)
Publication Year :
2024
Publisher :
BMC, 2024.

Abstract

Abstract 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: Chi2 (1) = 1.65, p = 0.199, T1: Chi2 (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

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
17417015
Volume :
22
Issue :
1
Database :
Directory of Open Access Journals
Journal :
BMC Medicine
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
edsdoj.79b05bda97ed44e1971a3f599a8c0d8e
Document Type :
article
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-024-03533-6