Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Advertisement
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
Advertisement
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Research Article

Randomised controlled trial of the impact of guidelines, prioritized review criteria and feedback on implementation of recommendations for angina and asthma.

Richard Baker, Robin C Fraser, Margaret Stone, Paul Lambert, Keith Stevenson and Chris Shiels
British Journal of General Practice 2003; 53 (489): 284-291.
Richard Baker
Department of General Practice and Primary Health Care, University of Leicester, Leicester General Hospital, Gwendolen Road, Leicester LE5 4PW. rb14@le.ac.uk
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Robin C Fraser
Department of General Practice and Primary Health Care, University of Leicester, Leicester General Hospital, Gwendolen Road, Leicester LE5 4PW. rb14@le.ac.uk
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Margaret Stone
Department of General Practice and Primary Health Care, University of Leicester, Leicester General Hospital, Gwendolen Road, Leicester LE5 4PW. rb14@le.ac.uk
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Paul Lambert
Department of General Practice and Primary Health Care, University of Leicester, Leicester General Hospital, Gwendolen Road, Leicester LE5 4PW. rb14@le.ac.uk
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Keith Stevenson
Department of General Practice and Primary Health Care, University of Leicester, Leicester General Hospital, Gwendolen Road, Leicester LE5 4PW. rb14@le.ac.uk
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Chris Shiels
Department of General Practice and Primary Health Care, University of Leicester, Leicester General Hospital, Gwendolen Road, Leicester LE5 4PW. rb14@le.ac.uk
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Guidelines are frequently used in an attempt to influence the performance of health professionals, and a national agency has been established in England and Wales to develop and disseminate guidelines. Professionals prefer short guidelines that highlight key recommendations, but whether such guidelines are more likely to be implemented is unknown. AIM: To determine the relative impact of the dissemination of full guidelines, reduced guidelines in the form of prioritized review criteria, and review criteria supplemented by feedback. DESIGN OF STUDY: Cluster randomised controlled trial, with an incomplete block design. SETTING: Eighty-one general practices in Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire, North Derbyshire, and Nottinghamshire. METHOD: The practices received one of the study interventions, either for care of adults with asthma or for care of people with angina. Data were collected before and after the interventions, the process measures being adherence to ten recommendations about asthma and 14 about angina, and outcome measures being scores in response to an asthma symptom questionnaire or the Seattle Angina Questionnaire, and levels of patient satisfaction. RESULTS: There were no consistent differences between the interventions in stimulating improvements in performance as indicated by adherence to the recommendations for asthma or angina. Patients with angina in practices that had received criteria or criteria plus feedback reported better symptom control. CONCLUSION: The dissemination of guidelines in the format of prioritized review criteria does not increase adherence to recommendations in comparison with the traditional guideline format, and the further provision of feedback has minimal additional effect.

Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 53 (489)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 53, Issue 489
April 2003
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Randomised controlled trial of the impact of guidelines, prioritized review criteria and feedback on implementation of recommendations for angina and asthma.
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Randomised controlled trial of the impact of guidelines, prioritized review criteria and feedback on implementation of recommendations for angina and asthma.
Richard Baker, Robin C Fraser, Margaret Stone, Paul Lambert, Keith Stevenson, Chris Shiels
British Journal of General Practice 2003; 53 (489): 284-291.

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Randomised controlled trial of the impact of guidelines, prioritized review criteria and feedback on implementation of recommendations for angina and asthma.
Richard Baker, Robin C Fraser, Margaret Stone, Paul Lambert, Keith Stevenson, Chris Shiels
British Journal of General Practice 2003; 53 (489): 284-291.
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • New concepts in screening.
  • Screening for colorectal cancer: decisions in general practice.
  • Factors influencing help seeking in mentally distressed young adults: a cross-sectional survey.
Show more Research Article

Related Articles

Cited By...

Advertisement

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers
  • RCGP e-Portfolio

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7679
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2021 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242