An integrative review of the implementation of public health guidelines.

Health guidelines are important tools to ensure that health practices are evidence-based. However, research on how these guidelines are implemented is scarce. This integrative review aimed to: identify the literature on evaluation of public health guidelines implementation to explore (a) the topics which public health guidelines being implemented and evaluated in their implementation process are targeting; (b) how public health guidelines are being translated into action and the potential barriers and facilitators to their implementation; and (c) which methods are being used to evaluate their implementation. A total of 2001 articles published since 2000 and related to both clinical and public health guidelines implementation was identified through searching four databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus). After screening titles and abstracts, only 10 papers related to public health guidelines implementation, and after accessing full-text, 8 were included in the narrative synthesis. Data were extracted on: topic and context, implementation process, barriers and facilitators, and evaluation methods used, and were then synthesised in a narrative form using a thematic synthesis approach. Most of these studies focussed on individual behaviours and targeted specific settings. The evaluation of implementation processes included qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods. The few articles retrieved suggest that evidence is still limited and highly context specific, and further research on translating public health guidelines into practice is needed.

[Not Available]. / ¿Cuáles son las expectativas de los pacientes cuando acuden a una consulta de atención primaria y qué piensan los médicos sobre ellas?

AIMS: To assess patient expectations at general practitioner (GP) visits, and compare them with what GPs think about them. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Cross sectional study of patients attending GPs consultations. Physicians sample from Andalusia. Before the consultation patients were asked to select, from a list of 10 expectations, the most important they had for that particular visit. They were then asked to prioritise them into the 3 most and least important. Doctors received the list of 10 expectations and were asked to select which expectations they considered as the most important for a patient when consulting; doctors had also to prioritise the 3 most and least important expectations. RESULTS: The study included 805 patients, 140 physicians. Out of the list of ten expectations, patients marked as important for that particular visit an average of 7.7. 797 (99%) patients claimed the important ones for them were three or more, but 207 (30%) were not able to prioritise more than two. When doctors prioritised the most important expectation, within the first three, they coincided with patients in two of them: the first, (listening) and the third (explaining). Similarly, doctors coincided with patients in the two least important expectations: to be referred and to receive a prescription. Out of the list of ten expectations, doctors over-scored significantly the patients wishes for receiving a diagnosis (43%), advice (40%), to be referred (35%), to receive a prescription (25%), a test (17%) and be examined (15%). CONCLUSIONS: General expectations as regards physician-patient communication are more important for patients than other more specific ones. Generally, physicians agree with patients in this assessment, but they over-estimated patient wishes of receiving prescriptions, tests or to be referred.