TY - JOUR
T1 - Awareness, value and use of the Australian living guidelines for the clinical care of people with COVID-19
T2 - an impact evaluation
AU - Millard, Tanya
AU - Elliott, Julian H.
AU - Green, Sally
AU - Tendal, Britta
AU - Vogel, Joshua P.
AU - Norris, Sarah
AU - Tate, Rhiannon
AU - Turner, Tari
AU - on behalf of the National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce
N1 - Funding Information:
The National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce is funded by the Australian Government Department of Health , the Victorian Government Department of Health and Human Services , the Ian Potter Foundation and the Walter Cottman Endowment Fund , managed by Equity Trustees, and the Lord Mayors’ Charitable Foundation . The funders played no role in the development of the methods, in the writing of the report, or in the decision to submit the article for publication.
Funding Information:
The National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce is funded by the Australian Government Department of Health, the Victorian Government Department of Health and Human Services, the Ian Potter Foundation and the Walter Cottman Endowment Fund, managed by Equity Trustees, and the Lord Mayors? Charitable Foundation. The funders played no role in the development of the methods, in the writing of the report, or in the decision to submit the article for publication.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021
PY - 2022/3
Y1 - 2022/3
N2 - Background and Objective: The Australian National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce is developing living, evidence-based, national guidelines for treatment of people with COVID-19. These living guidelines are updated each week. We undertook an impact evaluation to understand the extent to which health professionals providing treatment to people with COVID 19 were aware of, valued and used the guidelines, and the factors that enabled or hampered this. Methods: A mixed methods approach was used for the evaluation. Surveys were conducted to collect both quantitative and qualitative data and were supplemented with qualitative interviews. Australian healthcare practitioners potentially providing care to individuals with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were invited to participate. Data were collected on guideline awareness, relevance, ease of use, trustworthiness, value, importance of updating, use, and strengths and opportunities for improvement. Results: A total of 287 people completed the surveys and 10 interviews were conducted during November 2020. Awareness of the work of the Taskforce was high and the vast majority of respondents reported that the guidelines were very or extremely relevant, easy to use, trustworthy and valuable. More than 50% of respondents had used the guidelines to support their own clinical decision-making; and 30% were aware of other examples of the guidelines being used. Qualitative data revealed that amongst an overwhelming morass of evidence and opinions during the COVID-19 pandemic, the guidelines have been a reliable, united source of evidence-based advice; participants felt the guidelines built confidence and provided reassurance in clinical decision-making. Opportunities to improve awareness and accessibility to the guidelines were also explored. Conclusions: As of June 2021, the guidelines have been published and updated more than 40 times, include more than 140 recommendations and are being used to inform clinical decisions. The findings of this impact evaluation will be used to improve processes and outputs of the Taskforce and guidelines project, and to inform future living guideline projects.
AB - Background and Objective: The Australian National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce is developing living, evidence-based, national guidelines for treatment of people with COVID-19. These living guidelines are updated each week. We undertook an impact evaluation to understand the extent to which health professionals providing treatment to people with COVID 19 were aware of, valued and used the guidelines, and the factors that enabled or hampered this. Methods: A mixed methods approach was used for the evaluation. Surveys were conducted to collect both quantitative and qualitative data and were supplemented with qualitative interviews. Australian healthcare practitioners potentially providing care to individuals with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were invited to participate. Data were collected on guideline awareness, relevance, ease of use, trustworthiness, value, importance of updating, use, and strengths and opportunities for improvement. Results: A total of 287 people completed the surveys and 10 interviews were conducted during November 2020. Awareness of the work of the Taskforce was high and the vast majority of respondents reported that the guidelines were very or extremely relevant, easy to use, trustworthy and valuable. More than 50% of respondents had used the guidelines to support their own clinical decision-making; and 30% were aware of other examples of the guidelines being used. Qualitative data revealed that amongst an overwhelming morass of evidence and opinions during the COVID-19 pandemic, the guidelines have been a reliable, united source of evidence-based advice; participants felt the guidelines built confidence and provided reassurance in clinical decision-making. Opportunities to improve awareness and accessibility to the guidelines were also explored. Conclusions: As of June 2021, the guidelines have been published and updated more than 40 times, include more than 140 recommendations and are being used to inform clinical decisions. The findings of this impact evaluation will be used to improve processes and outputs of the Taskforce and guidelines project, and to inform future living guideline projects.
KW - Australia
KW - COVID-19
KW - evidence-based guidelines
KW - GRADE
KW - Impact evaluation
KW - Living evidence synthesis
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85122506853&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.11.035
DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.11.035
M3 - Article
C2 - 34852274
AN - SCOPUS:85122506853
SN - 0895-4356
VL - 143
SP - 11
EP - 21
JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
ER -