Measuring acceptability of clinical decision rules: Validation of the ottawa acceptability of decision rules instrument (OADRI) in four countries

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 30, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 398-408

  Brehaut, Jamie C ^a,b   Graham, Ian D ^a,b,c   Wood, Timothy J ^d   Taljaard, Monica ^a,b   Eagles, Debra ^a,b   Lott, Alison ^a   Clement, Catherine ^a   Kelly, Anne Maree ^e,g   Mason, Suzanne ^f   Stiell, Ian G ^a,b  

^a OTTAWA HOSPITAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

^c CANADIAN INSTITUTES OF HEALTH RESEARCH   (Canada)

^d Medical Council of Canada   (Canada)

^e UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

^f UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^g EMORY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Acceptability; Clinical decision rules; Survey.; Validation

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND; BRAIN INJURY; CANADA; CERVICAL SPINE; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; EMERGENCY HEALTH SERVICE; EMERGENCY MEDICINE; HEAD INJURY; HUMAN; INJURY; INSTRUMENTATION; MASS COMMUNICATION; RADIOGRAPHY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SPINE INJURY; STANDARD; UNITED KINGDOM; UNITED STATES; VALIDATION STUDY;

AUSTRALASIA; BRAIN INJURIES; CANADA; CERVICAL VERTEBRAE; CRANIOCEREBRAL TRAUMA; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS, CLINICAL; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; DIFFUSION OF INNOVATION; EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES; EMERGENCY MEDICINE; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SPINAL INJURIES; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED; UNITED STATES;

EID: 77953007505     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: 1552681X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X09344747     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Brehaut JC, Stiell I., Graham I., Visentin L. Clinical decision rules in real world: how a widely disseminated rule is used in everyday practice. Acad Emerg Med. 2005 ; 12: 948-956.
2. Brehaut JC, Stiell I., Graham I. Will a new clinical decision rule be widely used? The case of the Canadian C-Spine Rule. Acad Emerg Med. 2006 ; 13: 413-420.
3. Graham ID, Stiell IG, Laupacis A., OConnor AM, Wells GA Emergency physicians attitudes toward and use of clinical decision rules for radiography. Acad Emerg Med. 1998 ; 5: 134-140.
4. Graham ID, Stiell IG, Laupacis A., et al. Awareness and use of the Ottawa Ankle and Knee Rules in 5 countries: can publication alone be enough to change practice ? Ann Emerg Med. 2001 ; 37: 259-266.
5. Bandiera G., Stiell IG, Wells GA, et al. The Canadian C-Spine Rule performs better than unstructured physician judgement. Ann Emerg Med. 2003 ; 42: 395-402.
6. Jacobs LM, Schwartz R. Prospective analysis of acute cervical spine injury: a methodology to predict injury. Ann Emerg Med. 1986 ; 15: 44-49.
7. McKee TR, Tinkoff G., Rhodes M. Asymptomatic occult cervical spine fracture: case report and review of the literature. J Trauma. 1990 ; 30: 623-626.
8. Brand DA, Frazier WK, Kohlhepp WC, et al. A protocol for selecting patients with injured extremities who need x-rays. N Engl J Med. 1982 ; 306: 333-339.
9. Dunlop MG, Beattie TF, White GK, Raab GM, Doull RI Guidelines for selective radiological assessment of inversion ankle injuries. BMJ. 1986 ; 293: 603-605.
10. Stiell IG, Greenberg GH, McKnight RD, Nair RC, McDowell I., Worthington JR A study to develop clinical decision rules for the use of radiography in acute ankle injuries. Ann Emerg Med. 1992 ; 21: 384-390.
11. Stiell IG, McKnight RD, Greenberg GH, et al. Implementation of the Ottawa Ankle Rules. JAMA. 1994 ; 271: 827-832.
12. Stiell IG, Greenberg GH, Wells GA, et al. Derivation of a decision rule for the use of radiography in acute knee injuries. Ann Emerg Med. 1995 ; 26: 405-413.
13. Stiell IG, Wells GA, Hoag RH, et al. Implementation of the Ottawa Knee Rule for the use of radiography in acute knee injuries. JAMA. 1997 ; 278: 2075-2079.
14. Stiell IG, Wells GA, Vandemheen KL, et al. The Canadian C-spine rule for radiography in alert and stable trauma patients. JAMA. 2001 ; 286: 1841-1848.
15. Stiell IG, Wells GA, Vandemheen K., et al. The Canadian CT Head Rule for patients with minor head injury. Lancet. 2001 ; 357: 1391-1396.
16. Stiell IG, Clement CM, McKnight RD, et al. The Canadian C-spine rule versus the NEXUS low-risk criteria in patients with trauma. N Engl J Med. 2003 ; 349: 2510-2518.
17. Laupacis A., Sekar N., Stiell IG Clinical prediction rules. A review and suggested modifications of methodological standards. JAMA. 1997 ; 277: 488-494.
18. McGinn TG, Guyatt GH, Wyer PC, Naylor CD, Stiell IG, Richardson WS Users guides to the medical literature. XXII: How to use articles about clinical decision rules. JAMA. 2000 ; 284: 79-84.
19. Stiell IG, Wells GA Methodologic standards for the development of clinical decision rules in emergency medicine. Ann Emerg Med. 1999 ; 33: 437-447.
20. Stiell I., Clement CM, Rowe BH, et al. Comparison of the Canadian CT Head Rule and the New Orleans Criteria in patients with minor head injury. JAMA. 2005 ; 294: 1511-1518.
21. Stiell IG, Lesiuk H., Wells GA, et al. Canadian CT head rule study for patients with minor head injury: methodology for phase II (validation and economic analysis. Ann Emerg Med. 2001 ; 38: 317-322. (Pubitemid 32822545)
22. Stiell IG, Clement C., Grimshaw J., Brehaut J., et al. Implementation of the Canadian C-Spine Rule: a prospective 12-centre cluster randomized trial. BMJ, in press.
23. Stiell IG, Wells G., Laupacis A., et al. Multicentre trial to introduce the Ottawa Ankle Rules for use of radiography in acute ankle injuries. BMJ. 1995 ; 311: 594-597.
24. Reilly B., Evans JS Translating clinical research into clinical practice: impact of using prediction rules to make decisions. Ann Intern Med. 2006 ; 144: 201-209.
25. Brehaut JC, Stiell I. Clinical sensibility and barriers to KT should be considered prior to the impact analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2006 ; 77-78.
26. Cabana M., Rushton J., Rush A. Implementing practice guidelines for depression: applying a new framework to an old problem. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2002 ; 24: 35-42.
27. Hayward RSA, Guyatt GH, Moore KA, McKibbon A., Carter AO Canadian physicians attitudes about and preferences regarding clinical practice guidelines. CMAJ. 1997 ; 156: 1715-1723.
28. Streiner D., Norman G. Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use. New York: Oxford University Press ; 1995.
29. Eagles D., Stiell I., Clement C., et al. An international survey of emergency physicians awareness and use of the Canadian Cervical-Spine Rule and the Canadian Computed Tomography Head Rule. Acad Emerg Med. 2008 ; 15: 1256-1261.
30. Brouwers MC, Chambers A., Perry J. Can surveying practitioners about their practices help identify priority clinical practice guideline topics ? BMC Health Serv Res. 2003 ; 3: 23.
31. Graham I., Beardall S., Carter A., Tetroe J., Davies M. The state of the science and art of practice guideline development, dissemination, and evaluation in Canada. J Eval Clin Pract. 2003 ; 9: 195-202.
32. Brouwers MD, Graham ID, Hanna SE, Cameron DA, Browman GP Clinicians assessments of practice guidelines in oncology: the CAPGO survey. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004 ; 20: 421-426.
33. Graham I., Logan J. Translating research: innovations in knowledge transfer and continuity of care. Can J Nurs Res. 2004 ; 36: 89-103.
34. Logan J., Graham ID Toward a comprehensive interdisciplinary model of health care research use. Sci Commun. 1998 ; 20: 227-246.
35. Dillman D. Mail and internet surveys: The Tailored Design. New York: John Wiley & Sons ; 2000.
36. Streiner DL Being inconsistent about consistency: when coefficient alpha does and doesnt matter. J Pers Assess. 2003 ; 80: 217-222.
37. Dayan PS, Osmond M., Kuppermann N., et al. Development of the capacity necessary to perform and promote knowledge translation research in emergency medicine. Acad Emerg Med. 2007 ; 14: 978-983.
38. Brehaut JC, Graham I., Stiell I., Visentin L. Print Format and sender recognition are related to survey completion rate, and maybe response rate. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006 ; 59: 635-641.
39. Kerr D., Bradshaw L., Kelly AM Implementation of the Canadian C-spine rule reduces cervical spine x-ray rate for alert patients with potential neck injury. J Emerg Med. 2005 ; 28: 127-131.