How snapshot methodology identifies factors limiting translation of evidence to practice
Translating evidence-based treatments into clinical practice is fundamental to modern health care delivery. Yet numerous studies demonstrate limited uptake of guideline-endorsed treatment recommendations.1,2 Why is this so? There are many possible explanations. Patient characteristics such as age, comorbidity, socioeconomic status, cultural background and frailty are likely to be important. Most trials of novel drugs or devices are funded by industry. Trials are very expensive, and a trial sponsor is understandably keen to ensure that their product is administered to those patients most likely to benefit. Consequently, patients entered into clinical trials are typically younger and have less comorbidity than the broader population of patients with a particular condition. This was found to be the case in a recent Canadian registry report on patients admitted with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), which compared the baseline characteristics of those who were included in clinical trials with the much larger cohort of patients who were not.3 Other variables also limit the translation of evidence-based treatments. For ACS, which requires acute hospital care, the type of hospital (eg, peripheral versus major teaching hospital) and its location (eg, urban versus rural or remote setting) can determine the level of medical expertise and complexity of treatment offered to a patient.
The full article is accessible to AMA members and paid subscribers. Login to read more or purchase a subscription now.
Please note: institutional and Research4Life access to the MJA is now provided through Wiley Online Library.
- 1. Huynh L, Phillips PA, Chew DP. Improving the management of acute coronary syndromes in Australia: translating evidence to outcomes. Intern Med J 2007; 37: 412-415.
- 2. Gagliardi AR, Brouwers MC, Palda VA, et al. How can we improve guideline use? A conceptual framework of implementability. Implement Sci 2011; 6: 26.
- 3. Hutchinson-Jaffe AB, Goodman SG, Yan RT, et al. Comparison of baseline characteristics, management and outcome of patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome in versus not in clinical trials. Am J Cardiol 2010; 106: 1389-1396.
- 4. Chew DP, French J, Briffa TG, et al. Acute coronary syndrome care across Australia and New Zealand: the SNAPSHOT ACS study. Med J Aust 2013; 199: 185-191. <MJA full text>
- 5. McNeil JJ, Evans SM, Johnson NP, Cameron PA. Clinical-quality registries: their role in quality improvement [editorial]. Med J Aust 2010; 192: 244-245. <MJA full text>
- 6. Peabody JW, Luck J, Jain S, et al. Assessing the accuracy of administrative data in health information systems. Med Care 2004; 42: 1066-1072.
- 7. Lee TC, Goodman SG, Yan RT, et al. Disparities in management patterns and outcomes of patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome with and without a history of cerebrovascular disease. Am J Cardiol 2010; 105: 1083-1089.
- 8. Ranasinghe I, Alprandi-Costa B, Chow V, et al. Risk stratification in the setting of non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes 1999-2007. Am J Cardiol 2011; 108: 617-624.
- 9. Ferry CT, Fitzpatrick MA, Long PW, et al. Towards a safer culture: clinical pathways in acute coronary syndromes and stroke. Med J Aust 2004; 180 (10 Suppl): S92-S96. <MJA full text>
- 10. Scott IA, Darwin IC, Harvey KH, et al. Multisite, quality-improvement collaboration to optimise cardiac care in Queensland public hospitals. Med J Aust 2004; 180: 392-397. <MJA full text>
We have all received funding from the National Heart Foundation NSW Cardiovascular Research Network to conduct a snapshot survey of heart failure in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory.