Table 3 |
|||
| Implications of approaches to guideline implementation that differ by onus of responsibility | |||
| Implications | Responsibility | ||
| Developers | Intermediaries | Users | |
| Pros | · Continuity with development | · Multiple mechanisms/roles: | · User demand for instructions and tools |
| · There is no one else to implement guidelines | ○ Advise on tailoring of implementation | · Lasting effect because instructions and tools always available once developed | |
| ○ Influence peers as champions | · Feasible (easier, faster, least costly) so could be widely adopted | ||
| ○ Assist with implementation | |||
| Cons | · Insufficient resources are available with which to build capacity | · Clinicians most suitable intermediaries but not likely to volunteer | · Users have limited time to look at more information in guidelines |
| · Better to engage users in development and implementation | · Resources needed to identify, compensate, train, and support them | · Resources needed to develop instructions and tools | |
Gagliardi BMC Health Services Research 2012 12:404 doi:10.1186/1472-6963-12-404
