Indian Journal of PsychiatryIndian Journal of Psychiatry
Home | About us | Current Issue | Archives | Ahead of Print | Submission | Instructions | Subscribe | Advertise | Contact | Login 
    Users online: 12371 Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size Print this article Email this article Bookmark this page
Search Again
 Back
 Table of Contents
 
 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Article Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert
 Add to My List
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2906    
    Printed98    
    Emailed1    
    PDF Downloaded442    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 1    

Recommend this journal

 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2009  |  Volume : 51  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 127-133

Views about clinical practice guidelines of the Indian Psychiatric Society: A survey of psychiatrists in India


Department of Psychiatry, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh - 160 012, India

Correspondence Address:
Sandeep Grover
Department of Psychiatry, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh 160012
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0019-5545.49453

Rights and Permissions

Background: The Indian Psychiatric Society (IPS) constituted a task force on clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) in 2004 to formulate guidelines for management of various psychiatric disorders in the Indian setting. Over the next 4 years (2005-2008), the task force published 4 volumes of guidelines covering most of the psychiatric disorders and issues in special populations. However, till now, nothing is known about the usefulness, awareness and their implementation. This was a preliminary survey to know about the usefulness and awareness of the CPGs of the IPS. Materials and Methods: An email survey was sent to 1100 psychiatrists, of which 107 responded. Results: Only half of the responders were aware about all the 4 volumes of the guidelines and only 12.7% of the responders had read all the four volumes. About two-thirds of the responders had referred to these guidelines in their clinical practice, either occasionally (46.1%), often (16.7%) or always (2%). Similarly, more than two-thirds of the responders considered these guidelines to be helpful in making day-to-day clinical decisions in their practice, either occasionally (48%), often (19.6%) or always (3.9%). In the open-ended questions, many of the responders discussed their dissatisfaction with these guidelines and gave suggestions as to how these guidelines could be improved. Conclusion: There is need for better dissemination of the guidelines and making recommendations that can be applied in an Indian setting.



[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*

        

Print this article         Email this article