4.6 Article

Study protocol: A cross-sectional survey of clinicians to identify barriers to clinical practice guideline implementation in the assessment and treatment of persistent tic disorders

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 18, Issue 7, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0288408

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Based on expert opinion and literature review, this study discusses the barriers to the implementation of practice guidelines in the clinical care of patients with persistent tic disorders. The objectives are to identify divergences from existing guidelines and to identify categories of barriers leading to these gaps in clinical care.
IntroductionEight members of the International Parkinson's Disease and Movement Disorders Society Tic and Tourette Syndrome Study Group formed a subcommittee to discuss further barriers to practice guideline implementation. Based on expert opinion and literature review, the consensus was that practice variations continue to be quite broad and that many barriers in different clinical settings might negatively influence the adoption of the American Academy of Neurology and the European Society for the Study of Tourette Syndrome published guidelines. Objectives1) To identify how clinical practices diverge from the existing American Academy of Neurology and European Society for the Study of Tourette Syndrome guidelines, and 2) to identify categories of barriers leading to these clinical care gaps. Methods and analysisThis article presents the methodology of a planned cross-sectional survey amongst healthcare professionals routinely involved in the clinical care of patients with persistent tic disorders, aimed at 1) identifying how practices diverge from the published guidelines; and 2) identifying categories of barriers leading to these clinical care gaps. Purposeful sampling methods are used to identify and recruit critical persistent tic disorders stakeholders. The analysis will use descriptive statistics.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available