The effectiveness of national guidelines for preventing cardiovascular disease: Integrating effectiveness concepts and evaluating guidelines' use in the real world

Current Opinion in Lipidology

Volumn 21, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 359-365

  Manuel, Douglas G ^a,b,c  

^a OTTAWA HOSPITAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

effectiveness; guidelines; implementation

Indexed keywords

CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HUMAN; QUALITY CONTROL; RISK FACTOR; STANDARDS;

CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HEALTH PLANNING GUIDELINES; HUMANS; QUALITY CONTROL; RISK FACTORS;

EID: 77954956739     PISSN: 09579672     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MOL.0b013e32833c1f2b     Document Type: Review

References (52)

1. Enia F. Clinical practice guidelines and scientific evidence. JAMA 2009; 302:143.
2. Tricoci P, Allen JM, Kramer JM, et al. Scientific evidence underlying the ACC/AHA clinical practice guidelines. JAMA 2009; 301:831-841.
3. Eyre H, Kahn R, Robertson RM, Committee AAACW. Preventing cancer, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes: a common agenda for the American Cancer Society, the American Diabetes Association, and the American Heart Association. CA Cancer J Clin 2004; 54:190-207. (Pubitemid 39136580)
4. Ostbye T, Yarnall KS, Krause KM, et al. Is there time for management of patients with chronic diseases in primary care? Ann Fam Med 2005; 3:209-214.
5. Smith SC Jr. Screening for high-risk cardiovascular disease: a challenge for the guidelines: comment on 'systematic review of guidelines on cardiovascular risk assessment: which recommendations should clinicians follow for a cardiovascular health check?'. Arch Intern Med 2010; 170:40-42.
6. Bronnum-Hansen H. Quantitative health impact assessment modelling. Scand J Public Health 2009; 37:447-449.
7. Grol R. Has guideline development gone astray? Yes. BMJ 2010; 340:c306.
8. Ferket BS, Colkesen EB, Visser JJ, et al. Systematic review of guidelines on cardiovascular risk assessment: which recommendations should clinicians follow for a cardiovascular health check? Arch Intern Med 2010; 170:27-40.
9. Montori VM, Guyatt GH. Progress in evidence-based medicine. JAMA 2008; 300:1814-1816.
10. Committee to Advise the Public Health Service on Clinical Practice Guidelines IoM. Clinical practice guidelines: directions of a new program. 1990.
11. National Health and Medical Research Council. How to use the evidence: assessment and application of scientific evidence. Canberra: AusInfo; 2000.
12. US Department of Health and Human Services. Acute pain management: operative or medical procedures and trauma. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency Healthcare Policy and Research; 1992. Report No.: AHCPR Pub 92-10038
13. Harbour R, Miller J. A new system for grading recommendations in evidence based guidelines. BMJ 2001; 323:334-336.
14. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008; 336:924-926.
15. Becker RC, Meade TW,BergerPB,et al. The primary and secondary prevention of coronary artery disease. Chest 2008; 133 (Suppl 6):776S-814S.
16. Zwarenstein M, Treweek S, Gagnier JJ, et al. Improving the reporting of pragmatic trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. BMJ 2008; 3:1 223-1226.
17. Jackson R, Lynch J, Harper S. Preventing coronary heart disease. BMJ 2006; 332:617-618.
18. Wilber JA, Barrow JG. Hypertension: a community problem. Am J Med 1972; 52:653-663.
19. Wilkins K, Campbell N, Joffres M, et al. Blood pressure in Canadian adults. Health Rep 2010; 21:37-46.
20. Jackevicius CA, Cox JL, Carreon D, et al. Long-term trends in use of and expenditures for cardiovascular medications in Canada. CMAJ 2009; 181:E19-E28.
21. Manuel DG, Lim J, Tanuseputro P, et al. Revisiting rose: strategies for reducing coronary heart disease. BMJ 2006; 332:659-662.
22. Manuel DG, Kwong K, Tanuseputro P, et al. Effectiveness and efficiency of different guidelines on statin treatment for preventing deaths from coronary heart disease: modelling study 1. BMJ 2006; 332:1419.
23. D'Agostino RBS. Cardiovascular risk prediction: why continue to use models based on Framingham data? Curr Opin Lipidol 2010.
24. Davies P, Walker A, Grimshaw J. A systematic review of the use of theory in the design of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies and interpretation of the results of rigorous evaluations. Implement Sci 2010; 5:14.
25. Ceccato NE, Ferris LE, Manuel D, Grimshaw JM. Adopting health behavior change theory throughout the clinical practice guideline process. J Contin Educ Health Prof 2007; 27:201-207.
26. Burgers J, Grol R, Klazinga NS, et al. Towards evidence-based clinical practice: an international survey of 18 clinical guideline programs. Int J Qual Healthcare 2003; 15:31-45. (Pubitemid 36305560)
27. Eccles M, Mittman B. Welcome to implementation science. Implement Sci 2006; 1:1
28. New Zealand Guidelines Group. New Zealand cardiovascular guidelines handbook: a summary resource for primary care practitioner. 2nd ed. Wellington: New Zealand Guidelines Group; 2009.
29. JBS 2. Joint British Societies' guidelines on prevention of cardiovascular disease in clinical practice. Heart 2005; 91 (Suppl 5):v1-v52.
30. Liu P. Connections: Canadian Institute for Health Research, Institute for Circulatory and Respiratory Health Quarterly Newsletter-Winter 2009. http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/41039.html.
31. Van Weel C, Schellevis FG. Comorbidity and guidelines: conflicting interests. Lancet 2006; 367:550-551.
32. Boyd CM, Darer J, Boult C, et al. Clinical practice guidelines and quality of care for older patients with multiple comorbid diseases: implications for pay for performance. JAMA 2005; 294:716-724.
33. Lloyd-Jones DM, Hong Y, Labarthe D, et al. Defining and setting national goals for cardiovascular health promotion and disease reduction: The American Heart Association's Strategic Impact Goal through 2020 and beyond. Circulation 2010; 121:586-613.
34. McLaren L, McIntyre L, KirkpatrickS. Rose's population strategy of prevention need not increase social inequalities in health. Int J Epidemiol 2010; 39:372-377.
35. Smith RD, Petticrew M. Public health evaluation in the twenty-first century: time to see the wood as well as the trees. J Public Health 2010; 32:2-7.
36. Lonn E, Yusuf S. Polypill: the evidence and the promise. Curr Opin Lipidol 2009; 20:453-459.
37. Wald NJ, Law MR. A strategy to reduce cardiovascular disease by more than 80%. BMJ 2003; 326:1419.
38. Hayward RA, Krumholz HM, Zulman DM, et al. Optimizing statin treatment for primary prevention of coronary artery disease. Ann Intern Med 2010; 152:69-77.
39. Wei L, MacDonald TM, Watson AD, Murphy MJ. Effectiveness of two statin prescribing strategies with respectto adherence and cardiovascular outcomes: observational study. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2007; 16:385-392.
40. Evensen A, Sanson-Fisher R, D'Este C, Fitzgerald M. Trends in publications regarding evidence-practice gaps: a literature review. Implement Sci 2010; 5:11.
41. Zwarenstein M, Hux JE, Kelsall D, et al. The Ontario printed educational message (OPEM) trial to narrow the evidence-practice gap with respect to prescribing practices of general and family physicians: a cluster randomized controlled trial, targeting the care of individuals with diabetes and hypertension in Ontario, Canada. Implement Sci 2007; 2:37.
42. Unal B, Capewell S, Critchley JA. Coronary heart disease policy models: a systematic review. BMC Public Health 2006; 6:213.
43. Capewell S, Hayes DK, Ford ES, et al. Life-years gained among US adults from modern treatments and changes in the prevalence of 6 coronary heart disease risk factors between 1980 and 2000. Am J Epidemiol 2009; 170:229-236.
44. Capewell S, O'Flaherty M, Ford ES, Critchley JA. Potential reductions in United States coronary heart disease mortality by treating more patients. Am J Cardiol 2009; 103:1703-1709.
45. Taylor-Robinson D, Milton B, Lloyd-Williams F, et al. Policy-makers' attitudes to decision support models for coronary heart disease: a qualitative study. J Health Serv Res Pol 2008; 13:209-214.
46. Manuel DG, Kwong JC. Healthy trees make a healthy wood. J Public Health (Oxf) 2010; 32:14-15.
47. Mandelblatt JS, Cronin KA, Bailey S, et al. Effects of mammography screening under different screening schedules: model estimates of potential benefits and harms. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151:738-747.
48. Stewart ST, Cutler DM, Rosen AB. Forecasting the effects of obesity and smoking on U.S. Life expectancy. NEJM 2009; 361:2252-2260.
49. Capewell S, Ford ES, Croft JB, et al. Cardiovascular risk factor trends and potential for reducing coronary heart disease mortality in the United States of America. Bull World Health Organ 2010; 88:120-130.
50. Bibbins-Domingo K, Chertow GM, Coxson PG, et al. Projected effect of dietary salt reductions on future cardiovascular disease. NEJM 2010; NEJMoa0907355.
51. Van der Weijden T, Legare F, Boivin A, et al. How to integrate individual patient values and preferences in clinical practice guidelines? A research protocol. Implement Sci 2010; 5:10.
52. Boivin A, Green J, van der Meulen MJ, et al. Why consider patients' preferences? A discourse analysis of clinical practice guideline developers. Med Care 2009; 47:908-915.