Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorStreet, Jacqueline Mary
dc.contributor.authorDelany, Toni
dc.date.accessioned2012-10-30T05:40:07Z
dc.date.available2012-10-30T05:40:07Z
dc.date.issued2012
dc.identifier.citationStreet, J.M. and Delany, T.N., 2012. Guidelines in disrepute: a case study of influenza vaccination of healthcare workers. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 36(4), 357-363.en
dc.identifier.issn1326-0200
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2328/26392
dc.identifier.urihttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/%28ISSN%291753-6405/homepage/ForAuthors.html
dc.description.abstractPractice guidelines are an important support tool for health behaviour change, but effective implementation of guidelines can be difficult and the gaps between guidelines and practice may be intractable. This paper examines a neglected but important area; namely, the reasons why problems may develop in the implementation and uptake of practice guidelines. We explore the existence of gaps in the translation of evidence into practice-based guidelines for health promotion. Approach: Drawing on relevant literature we examine influenza vaccination, in particular, guidelines that advise influenza vaccination for all healthcare workers. We highlight gaps between the actions advised within these guidelines and the relevant evidence, and explore some of the processes that have amplified and obscured this evidence during the development of guidelines. Implications: The processes that underlie the translation of evidence into practice guidelines risk the loss of the nuanced and rich information needed for individual decision-making. Where evidence is limited, the propagation of evidence guidelines gaps, without transparency as to the basis of decision-making, compromises the credibility of guidelines and puts at risk the benefits that guidelines can provide. Conclusion: We argue that evidence guideline gaps may arise because of a range of problems with the nature of the evidence used to justify the guidelines and the way in which that evidence is applied and interpreted. We suggest that these problems may bring potentially useful guidelines into disrepute.en
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherSouth Australian Community Health Research Uniten
dc.rightsAfter acceptance: Provided that you give appropriate acknowledgement to the Journal, the Public Health Association of Australia Inc. and Blackwell Publishing, and full bibliographic reference for the Article when it is published, you may use the accepted version of the Article as originally submitted for publication in the Journal, and updated to include any amendments made after peer review, in the following ways: • You may share print or electronic copies of the Article with colleagues; • You may use all or part of the Article and abstract, without revision or modification, in personal compilations or other publications of your own work; • You may use the Article within your employer's institution or company for educational or research purposes, including use in course packs; • 18 months after publication you may post an electronic version of the Article on your own personal website, on your employer's website/repository and on free public servers in your subject area; • Electronic versions of the accepted Article must include a link to the published version of the Article together with the following text: ‘The definitive version is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com. Please note that you are not permitted to post the Blackwell Publishing PDF version of the Article online.en
dc.subjectPublic healthen
dc.subjectInfluenzaen
dc.subjectGuidelinesen
dc.subjectVaccinationsen
dc.subjectEvidence-based practiceen
dc.titleGuidelines in disrepute: a case study of influenza vaccination of healthcare workersen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.rights.licenseIn Copyright


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record