TY - JOUR
T1 - The impact of a digital guideline version on schizophrenia guideline knowledge
T2 - results from a multicenter cluster-randomized controlled trial
AU - Halms, Theresa
AU - Gaigl, Gabriele
AU - Lorenz, Carolin
AU - Güler, Duygu
AU - Khorikian-Ghazari, Naiiri
AU - Röh, Astrid
AU - Burschinski, Angelika
AU - Gaebel, Wolfgang
AU - Flick, Marisa
AU - Pielenz, Charline
AU - Salveridou-Hof, Eva
AU - Schneider-Axmann, Thomas
AU - Schneider, Marco
AU - Wagner, Elias
AU - Falkai, Peter
AU - Lucae, Susanne
AU - Rentrop, Michael
AU - Zwanzger, Peter
AU - Seemüller, Florian
AU - Landgrebe, Michael
AU - Ortner, Marion
AU - Schneeweiß, Bertram
AU - Brieger, Peter
AU - Ajayi, Klemens
AU - Schwarz, Michael
AU - Heres, Stephan
AU - Marstrander, Nicolay
AU - Becker, Thomas
AU - Jäger, Markus
AU - Putzhammer, Albert
AU - Frasch, Karel
AU - Steber, Raimund
AU - Leucht, Stefan
AU - Hasan, Alkomiet
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2024.
PY - 2024/12
Y1 - 2024/12
N2 - 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
AB - 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
KW - Cluster-randomized controlled trial
KW - Guideline implementation
KW - Health personnel
KW - MAGICapp
KW - Practice guideline
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85199965423&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1186/s12916-024-03533-6
DO - 10.1186/s12916-024-03533-6
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85199965423
SN - 1741-7015
VL - 22
JO - BMC Medicine
JF - BMC Medicine
IS - 1
M1 - 311
ER -