Article Text
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Introduction
Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are ‘systematically developed statements to assist practitioner and patient decisions about appropriate healthcare for specific circumstances’.1 The implementation of guidelines can help optimise resource utilisation, reduce variations in clinical practice and identify and apply evidence-based recommendations safely and effectively.2 In China, the number of guidelines is increasing annually, while low adherence remains a significant challenge. Low adherence not only wastes healthcare resources but also allows preventable deaths to occur. Addressing the poor implementation of guidelines in China is urgent.
Implementation research, which is the scientific study to promote evidence-based practices into routine practice,3 may be feasible to improve guideline adherence. For example, by finding the barriers and facilitators for the guideline implementation, the implementation strategy is designed accordingly. However, in China, which has a large population and area, the implementation strategy adopted in a small area for a specific context may only be effective in a certain region, but it is difficult to work in the whole country.2 Therefore, it is necessary to pay attention to the intrinsic factors of the guidelines and optimise the guidelines from the development of the guidelines, so as to improve the guideline implementability. This article provides a brief overview of the quantity, quality and implementation of CPGs in China, along with suggestions for future directions, offering basic information for scholars to understand the implementation of CPGs in China.
Weak implementation status in China
The number of published CPGs in China is rising year by year. This brisk expansion in numbers may reflect the maturation of the practice of producing CPGs and, on the other hand, indicate the government and academic institutions’ role in recognising guideline development within their metric systems. Such recognition provides potent incentives for the prolific creation of guidelines.
Historically, the …
Footnotes
DZ and NY contributed equally.
Contributors DZ was responsible for the selection of the thesis and the writing of the first draft of the thesis; NY and YC participated in the revision and text finishing of the first draft; DRX is responsible for structural design, data and information review, revision, quality control and review of the first draft of the paper.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.