Relevance to family practice of English-language guidelines on XXXX : a review.

@entity5 @entity1 @entity0
BACKGROUND: GPs regard @entity5 guidelines as useful yet criticise their limited applicability to the primary care setting. OBJECTIVES: To determine the extent to which @entity0 guidelines contain recommendations that are relevant to GPs and to find out which of the GPs' roles in @entity5 care the recommendations refer to. METHODS: Evidence- and consent-based @entity0 guidelines were searched for in guideline databases and selected guideline providers' web pages, and checked against inclusion and exclusion criteria. Relevant recommendations were identified, extracted and examined. The involvement of GPs in guideline development as well as whether they were named as a target group was further investigated. RESULTS: Of the 65 identified guidelines, 35 were eligible and contained recommendations applicable to GPs. GPs were directly involved in the development of the majority of only @entity0 guidelines and were explicitly named as a target group in fewer than 50% of guidelines. The majority of recommendations dealt with @entity1 -physician communication, with a focus on @entity5 therapy. Rarer procedural recommendations predominantly concentrated on follow-up/survivorship care. Less than one-third of all relevant recommendations concerned diagnosis. Only @entity0 guidelines provided a high number of recommendations on transitions between primary and secondary care. CONCLUSION: Greater consideration of GPs would increase their acceptance of guidelines, promote @entity5 care and clarify responsibilities between @entity5 care providers. The GP's role in @entity5 diagnosis is not appropriately reflected in @entity5 guideline recommendations.
