4.5 Review

Uptake of the World Health Organization's trauma care guidelines: a systematic review

期刊

BULLETIN OF THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION
卷 94, 期 8, 页码 585-598

出版社

WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION
DOI: 10.2471/BLT.15.162214

关键词

-

资金

  1. Fogarty International Center, United States National Institutes of Health [R25TW009345, D43-TW007267]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To understand the degree to which the trauma care guidelines released by the World Health Organization (WHO) between 2004 and 2009 have been used, and to identify priorities for the future implementation and dissemination of such guidelines. Methods We conducted a systematic review, across 19 databases, in which the titles of the three sets of guidelines Guidelines foressential trauma care, Prehospital trauma care systems and Guidelines for trauma quality improvement programmes were used as the search terms. Results were validated via citation analysis and expert consultation. Two authors independently reviewed each record of the guidelines' implementation. Findings We identified 578 records that provided evidence of dissemination of WHO trauma care guidelines and 101 information sources that together described 140 implementation events. Implementation evidence could be found for 51 countries 14 (40%) of the 35 lowincome countries, 15 (32%) of the 47 lower-middle income, 15 (28%) of the 53 upper-middle-income and 7 (12%) of the 59 high-income. Of the 140 implementations, 63 (45%) could be categorized as needs assessments, 38 (27%) as endorsements by stakeholders, 20 (14%) as incorporations into policy and 19 (14%) as educational interventions. Conclusion Although WHO's trauma care guidelines have been widely implemented, no evidence was identified of their implementation in 143 countries. More serial needs assessments for the ongoing monitoring of capacity for trauma care in health systems and more incorporation of the guidelines into both the formal education of health-care providers and health policy are needed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据