Oncology clinical practice guidelines usage among physicians in Nepal

• Published in: Journal of evaluation in clinical practice 2022-02, Vol.28 (1), p.142-150
• Main Authors: Bhandari, Divya, Ozaki, Akihiko, Ghimire, Bikal, Sigdel, Shailendra, Shrestha, Ranish, Shrestha, Sunil, Higuchi, Asaka, Uprety, Anup, Tsubokura, Masaharu, Tanimoto, Tetsuya, Singh, Yogendra Prasad
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: cancer; Cancer therapies; clinical guidelines; Clinical medicine; Clinical practice guidelines; Cross-Sectional Studies; Evidence-based medicine; Guidelines; Humans; low resource settings; low‐ and middle‐income countries; Medical Oncology; Neoplasms - therapy; Nepal; Oncology; oncology clinical guidelines; Physicians
• ISSN: 1356-1294; 1365-2753
• DOI: 10.1111/jep.13594

Objective Oncology clinical practice guidelines (OCPGs) are systematically developed evidence‐based recommendations aimed to guide practitioners in decision making during the diagnosis, management, and treatment of cancer patients under specific circumstances, thereby optimizing clinical outcomes. However, little is known about the implementation of those guidelines in low and middle‐income countries including Nepal. This research aimed to identify the type of OCPGs used by Nepalese physicians working in oncology departments and to explore barriers and facilitators affecting their use. Methods Using the total population sampling technique, we conducted an online cross‐sectional survey from June 2020 to January 2021 among physicians working in the oncology departments of Nepal. Descriptive analyses were conducted to summarize the research findings. Results Out of 171 physicians approached for the study, 102 (59.6%) responded to the questionnaire. The sizable proportions of the participants were a senior group of physicians with 27.5% being consultants, 14.7% senior consultants, and 16.7% professors. The most commonly used guideline was the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline of the United States (75.5%) followed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline (44.7%). While only 22.6% of physicians reported using OCPGs every time, more than half (56.9%) highlighted that OCPGs are not feasible to implement in Nepal. Insufficient facilities/equipment, physicians' unwillingness to change their usual practice, inability to discuss research with knowledgeable colleagues, and lack of time were commonly cited barriers. Conclusion Findings of our study highlighted that the OCPGs developed in high‐income countries may not be feasible for low resource settings like Nepal. Comprehensive local OCPGs should be developed considering the available resources, feasibility, and financial constraints of patients. Furthermore, a constant sharing and learning environment should be created to enhance the knowledge of practicing physicians and to promote the proper implementation of evidence‐based findings.