How Can We Make Information on Equity in Clinical Guidelines More Usable for Clinicians? A Case Study Methodology of General Practitioners

Background:
Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are moving toward greater consideration of population-level differences, like health inequities, when creating management recommendations. CPGs have the potential to reduce or perpetuate health inequities. The intrinsic design factors of electronic interfaces that contain CPGs are known barriers to guideline use. There is little existing guidance on supporting the uptake of equity-specific recommendations within CPGs by end users.

Objective:
To investigate (1) How do General Practitioners (GPs) use Therapeutic Guidelines to adapt their clinical management for disadvantaged populations and do they support equity recommendations in this CPG? (2) How could Therapeutic Guidelines embed health equity information into their guidelines?

Methods:
The Therapeutic Guidelines was used as a case study as it is the most frequently used CPG in Australian healthcare settings. We employed descriptive qualitative methods, focused on semistructured interviews with 17 eligible GPs. Interviews were structured around four case studies that initially explored the management of a patient from the general population, with their details then changed so they belonged to a disadvantaged population. We used a ‘think aloud’ interview technique to explore the clinician's application of CPGs.

Results:
Three themes were developed relating to: (1) GPs agree that health equity information needs to be intentionally included in guidelines and should focus on disadvantaged subgroups to support their clinical decision-making, (2) GPs want CPGs to include equity information which is relevant to the purpose and use of each guideline, acknowledging that other clinical aids could provide additional information when needed, (3) GPs want clearer signposting of information within guidelines to help navigation of key sections, highlighting the utility of symbols, colours and dropdown functions.

Conclusion:
This research extends existing literature by showing that including equity information tailored to the articulated purpose of each CPG, as perceived by end users, may maximise uptake. Our outlined strategies could be used by CPG developers to make equity-focused management recommendations more accessible. This may increase the implementation of equity-focused recommendations by clinicians, supporting current primary care strategies in achieving more equitable outcomes.