Implementation of asthma clinical practice guidelines in primary care: A cross-sectional study based on the Knowledge-to-Action Cycle

ABSTRACT

Objective: Based on the Knowledge-to-Action Cycle, we assessed the self-reported implementation and perception of asthma clinical practice guideline (CPG) recommendations in primary care physicians (PCPs), along with the barriers and facilitators to CPG use in primary care. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study. Using the extended Asthma Physicians' Practice Assessment Questionnaire^©, PCPs self-reported the following: their knowledge of 15 key asthma CPG recommendations, the perceived usefulness of each of these recommendations, their motivation to apply these recommendations, and their agreement with the content of these recommendations. Participants also reported the barriers and facilitators to CPG use in primary care. Results: Out of the 46 potential participants, 43 physicians completed the questionnaire (response rate: 93%). Results underlined care gaps regarding the provision of asthma education and written action plans, inhaler technique demonstrations, and assessment of patients' concerns. Results showed that the majority of physicians knew the key asthma CPG recommendations, but their motivation to implement them and the perceived usefulness of these recommendations varied from one proposal to another. Main barriers to the implementation of these recommendations were related to time and resources. PCPs stressed the importance of teamwork for enhancing the use of asthma CPGs in primary care. Conclusions: Our results suggest that the implementation of asthma CPGs remains suboptimal in primary care. Interventions addressing the identified barriers and providing facilitators to asthma CPG implementation, such as continuing education, could be implemented and evaluated to sustain asthma CPG use in primary care settings.

KEYWORDS:

• Asthma
• Knowledge-to-Action Cycle
• practice guidelines
• Translational medical research

Contributions

L.P.B. designed the study. M.E.G. and L.P.B. were involved in data analysis and interpretation. M.E.G. drafted the manuscript, and L.P.B revised it for important intellectual content. M.E.G. and L.P.B. approved the final version before submission.