Perspectives on the value of American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical guidelines as reported by oncologists and Health Maintenance Organizations

Charles L. Bennett, Mark R. Somerfield, David G. Pfister, Cecilia Tomori, Sofia Yakren, Peter B. Bach

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: Although the American Society of Clinical Onoclogy's (ASCO) Health Services Research (HSR) committee activities have primarily focused on clinical guideline development, little is known about the value placed on these guidelines by the desired end users. ASCO members and Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) were surveyed on the value and implementation of ASCO guidelines. In this article, we summarize our findings. Methods: ASCO members (n = 1500) were queried about whether they had read ASCO's first four clinical guidelines and technology assessment; whether they agreed with the recommendations; whether they used guidelines in clinical practice; and how guidelines had affected reimbursement. HMOs (n = 131) were queried on how they identify, implement, and value the first four ASCO clinical guidelines. Results: The membership survey indicated that ASCO guidelines were read more often by physicians in private healthcare settings compared with physicians in academic practices (P <.02). Disagreement rates were low for all guidelines (range, 1% to 7%). One quarter of respondents reported that the guidelines were difficult to find and difficult to apply to the practice setting, and approximately one tenth of respondents indicated that the guidelines were difficult to evaluate, interpret, or read. The HMO survey indicated that one third of HMOs reported use of ASCO guidelines, with higher rates of usage by larger HMOs and by those with higher National Committee on Quality Assurance (NCQA) ratings. Respondent HMOs valued guidelines for various purposes and used multiple methods of guideline identification and implementation. Conclusion: ASCO guidelines are generally highly supported by physicians and HMOs. Additional studies are needed to identify implementation barriers and to see whether guidelines have resulted in improvements in healthcare.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)937-941
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Clinical Oncology
Volume21
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2003
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Health Maintenance Organizations
Guidelines
Oncologists
Physicians
Delivery of Health Care
Biomedical Technology Assessment
Health Services Research

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cancer Research
  • Oncology

Cite this

Perspectives on the value of American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical guidelines as reported by oncologists and Health Maintenance Organizations. / Bennett, Charles L.; Somerfield, Mark R.; Pfister, David G.; Tomori, Cecilia; Yakren, Sofia; Bach, Peter B.

In: Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol. 21, No. 5, 01.03.2003, p. 937-941.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Bennett, Charles L. ; Somerfield, Mark R. ; Pfister, David G. ; Tomori, Cecilia ; Yakren, Sofia ; Bach, Peter B. / Perspectives on the value of American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical guidelines as reported by oncologists and Health Maintenance Organizations. In: Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2003 ; Vol. 21, No. 5. pp. 937-941.
@article{b269fd91024547a9867c737f94701843,
title = "Perspectives on the value of American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical guidelines as reported by oncologists and Health Maintenance Organizations",
abstract = "Purpose: Although the American Society of Clinical Onoclogy's (ASCO) Health Services Research (HSR) committee activities have primarily focused on clinical guideline development, little is known about the value placed on these guidelines by the desired end users. ASCO members and Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) were surveyed on the value and implementation of ASCO guidelines. In this article, we summarize our findings. Methods: ASCO members (n = 1500) were queried about whether they had read ASCO's first four clinical guidelines and technology assessment; whether they agreed with the recommendations; whether they used guidelines in clinical practice; and how guidelines had affected reimbursement. HMOs (n = 131) were queried on how they identify, implement, and value the first four ASCO clinical guidelines. Results: The membership survey indicated that ASCO guidelines were read more often by physicians in private healthcare settings compared with physicians in academic practices (P <.02). Disagreement rates were low for all guidelines (range, 1{\%} to 7{\%}). One quarter of respondents reported that the guidelines were difficult to find and difficult to apply to the practice setting, and approximately one tenth of respondents indicated that the guidelines were difficult to evaluate, interpret, or read. The HMO survey indicated that one third of HMOs reported use of ASCO guidelines, with higher rates of usage by larger HMOs and by those with higher National Committee on Quality Assurance (NCQA) ratings. Respondent HMOs valued guidelines for various purposes and used multiple methods of guideline identification and implementation. Conclusion: ASCO guidelines are generally highly supported by physicians and HMOs. Additional studies are needed to identify implementation barriers and to see whether guidelines have resulted in improvements in healthcare.",
author = "Bennett, {Charles L.} and Somerfield, {Mark R.} and Pfister, {David G.} and Cecilia Tomori and Sofia Yakren and Bach, {Peter B.}",
year = "2003",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1200/JCO.2003.07.165",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "21",
pages = "937--941",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Oncology",
issn = "0732-183X",
publisher = "American Society of Clinical Oncology",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Perspectives on the value of American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical guidelines as reported by oncologists and Health Maintenance Organizations

AU - Bennett, Charles L.

AU - Somerfield, Mark R.

AU - Pfister, David G.

AU - Tomori, Cecilia

AU - Yakren, Sofia

AU - Bach, Peter B.

PY - 2003/3/1

Y1 - 2003/3/1

N2 - Purpose: Although the American Society of Clinical Onoclogy's (ASCO) Health Services Research (HSR) committee activities have primarily focused on clinical guideline development, little is known about the value placed on these guidelines by the desired end users. ASCO members and Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) were surveyed on the value and implementation of ASCO guidelines. In this article, we summarize our findings. Methods: ASCO members (n = 1500) were queried about whether they had read ASCO's first four clinical guidelines and technology assessment; whether they agreed with the recommendations; whether they used guidelines in clinical practice; and how guidelines had affected reimbursement. HMOs (n = 131) were queried on how they identify, implement, and value the first four ASCO clinical guidelines. Results: The membership survey indicated that ASCO guidelines were read more often by physicians in private healthcare settings compared with physicians in academic practices (P <.02). Disagreement rates were low for all guidelines (range, 1% to 7%). One quarter of respondents reported that the guidelines were difficult to find and difficult to apply to the practice setting, and approximately one tenth of respondents indicated that the guidelines were difficult to evaluate, interpret, or read. The HMO survey indicated that one third of HMOs reported use of ASCO guidelines, with higher rates of usage by larger HMOs and by those with higher National Committee on Quality Assurance (NCQA) ratings. Respondent HMOs valued guidelines for various purposes and used multiple methods of guideline identification and implementation. Conclusion: ASCO guidelines are generally highly supported by physicians and HMOs. Additional studies are needed to identify implementation barriers and to see whether guidelines have resulted in improvements in healthcare.

AB - Purpose: Although the American Society of Clinical Onoclogy's (ASCO) Health Services Research (HSR) committee activities have primarily focused on clinical guideline development, little is known about the value placed on these guidelines by the desired end users. ASCO members and Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) were surveyed on the value and implementation of ASCO guidelines. In this article, we summarize our findings. Methods: ASCO members (n = 1500) were queried about whether they had read ASCO's first four clinical guidelines and technology assessment; whether they agreed with the recommendations; whether they used guidelines in clinical practice; and how guidelines had affected reimbursement. HMOs (n = 131) were queried on how they identify, implement, and value the first four ASCO clinical guidelines. Results: The membership survey indicated that ASCO guidelines were read more often by physicians in private healthcare settings compared with physicians in academic practices (P <.02). Disagreement rates were low for all guidelines (range, 1% to 7%). One quarter of respondents reported that the guidelines were difficult to find and difficult to apply to the practice setting, and approximately one tenth of respondents indicated that the guidelines were difficult to evaluate, interpret, or read. The HMO survey indicated that one third of HMOs reported use of ASCO guidelines, with higher rates of usage by larger HMOs and by those with higher National Committee on Quality Assurance (NCQA) ratings. Respondent HMOs valued guidelines for various purposes and used multiple methods of guideline identification and implementation. Conclusion: ASCO guidelines are generally highly supported by physicians and HMOs. Additional studies are needed to identify implementation barriers and to see whether guidelines have resulted in improvements in healthcare.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0037365492&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0037365492&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1200/JCO.2003.07.165

DO - 10.1200/JCO.2003.07.165

M3 - Article

C2 - 12610197

AN - SCOPUS:0037365492

VL - 21

SP - 937

EP - 941

JO - Journal of Clinical Oncology

JF - Journal of Clinical Oncology

SN - 0732-183X

IS - 5

ER -