IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v28y2008i1p138-145.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Physicians and Nurses Focus on Different Aspects of Guidelines When Deciding Whether to Adopt Them: An Application of Conjoint Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Astrid Goossens

    (Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics & Bioinformatics, Academic Medical Center at the University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands, a.goossens@amc.uva.nl.)

  • Patrick M. M. Bossuyt

    (Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics & Bioinformatics, Academic Medical Center at the University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands)

  • Rob J. de Haan

    (Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics & Bioinformatics, Academic Medical Center at the University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands)

Abstract

Objectives. The objectives of this study are to determine the relative importance of 6 guideline features for physicians' and nurses' willingness to adopt practice guidelines, to examine whether physicians and nurses focus on the same or on different aspects of guidelines, and to test whether professionals' learning preference influences their willingness to adopt guidelines. Methods. An orthogonal main effects design was used to develop 16 written guideline descriptions, which varied on 6 characteristics: 1) benefit for the professional, 2) source, 3) support by management, 4) scientific basis, 5) costs, and 6) subject. These descriptions were presented to 251 physicians and 110 nurses working at the Academic Medical Center in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. They indicated their willingness to adopt each guideline on a 7-point scale and completed Kolb's Learning Style Inventory to determine their preferred learning style. Results. The response rate was 55% for physicians and 66% for nurses. The mean age was 40 years; 55% and 25% of the respondents were male. The mean adoption score was 5.26 for physicians and 5.00 for nurses. Of the 6 characteristics, ``scientific basis'' was found to be the strongest determinant for physicians, and the factor ``interesting subject'' was the strongest for nurses. The other characteristics had a limited effect. Theoretically oriented physicians had a significantly lower average score compared with those who preferred active experimentation. No such effects were observed with nurses. Conclusions. Adherence to guidelines is influenced by internal as well as contextual attributes of guidelines. Physicians and nurses focus on different aspects, which is partly influenced by their preferred learning style. This difference in focus should be taken into account when developing an implementation strategy.

Suggested Citation

  • Astrid Goossens & Patrick M. M. Bossuyt & Rob J. de Haan, 2008. "Physicians and Nurses Focus on Different Aspects of Guidelines When Deciding Whether to Adopt Them: An Application of Conjoint Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(1), pages 138-145, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:28:y:2008:i:1:p:138-145
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X07308749
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X07308749
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X07308749?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Risto Kuronen & Piia Jallinoja & Kristiina Patja, 2011. "Use of and Attitudes Toward Current Care Guidelines Among Primary and Secondary Care Nurses in Finland," Clinical Nursing Research, , vol. 20(3), pages 310-325, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:28:y:2008:i:1:p:138-145. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.