Journal of evaluation in clinical practice
-
Comment Letter
Unwarranted variation from a health economics perspective.
-
Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) should provide busy health care professionals with easy-to-use tools that support efficient uptake of current best evidence in daily clinical practice. However, CPG uptake rarely occurs at the speed of evidence production. The aim of this study was to explore the factors influencing CPG uptake among South African (SA) physiotherapists (PTs). ⋯ The findings of this study generally concur with previous studies about PT barriers to CPG uptake; however, it provides novel information on barrier contexts in one LMIC with complex PT service delivery.
-
Bereavement care practice guidelines assist in delivering high-quality bereavement care. However, the quality of published guidelines is unknown. A systematic review was conducted to identify and evaluate the quality of the process used to develop bereavement care practice guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument. ⋯ The domains "clarity of presentation" and "scope and purpose" achieved the highest scores (mean ± SD 71.0 ± 27.6% and 64.4 ± 37.5%, respectively), while "editorial independence" showed the lowest mean score (9.2 ± 13.3%). While few of the bereavement care practice guidelines met the AGREE II quality standards related to their development process, neither the quality of the content of each guideline nor the in-context application was assessed by the AGREE II instrument. Ongoing development of practice guidelines may benefit from consideration and application of the framework outlined in the AGREE II or similar appraisal instrument.
-
Review
Unwarranted clinical variation in health care: Definitions and proposal of an analytic framework.
Unwarranted clinical variation is a topic of heightened interest in health care systems around the world. While there are many publications and reports on clinical variation, few studies are conceptually grounded in a theoretical model. This study describes the empirical foundations of the field and proposes an analytic framework. ⋯ Consideration of the results of the mapping exercise-together with a review of adjustment, explanatory and stratification variables, and the factors associated with residual variation-informed the development of an analytic framework. This framework highlights the role that agency and motivation, evidence and judgement, and personal and organizational capacity play in clinical decision making and reveals key facets that distinguish warranted from unwarranted clinical variation. From a measurement perspective, it underlines the need for careful consideration of attribution, aggregation, models of care, and temporality in any assessment.