Responses

PDF

Multilayered and digitally structured presentation formats of trustworthy recommendations: a combined survey and randomised trial
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

  • Published on:
    Guidelines: Physicians' preference, improved knowledge, implementation, and improved patient outcomes
    • Mengyang Di, Researcher in methodology Brown University

    Several concerns/comments came up while I was reading this interesting study. The association between outcomes of interest (preference and knowledge) and different interventions (two formats of guideline presentation) might not be as strong or might be even weaker for the following reasons. 1. Preference: Noticeably, there were some differences in preferred knowledge source between the two groups at baseline- 5% more participants in the standard format group preferred that from colleagues. This might reflect somewhat varied levels of acceptance for practice guidelines or other evidence sources of high quality and more reliable in the two groups. This would partially explain the difference in proportions of participants who preferred the formats they respectively saw in the interventions. 2. Knowledge: The authors did not test the level of medical knowledge or practice experience in the two groups at baseline. It is possible that participants in the multilayered format group had a better knowledge fund or more experienced in the issues addressed in the guideline before the interventions. Thus, they scored slightly better in the MCQs (not statistically significant in the study) than the standard format group. Additionally, the MCQs might not cover all the contents or information delivered through the interventions. Therefore, the small difference in MCQs performance may not accurately reflect the difference of knowledge levels in the two groups after the interventions.

    ...Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.