Skip to main content
Number №4, 2025
Legal Sovereignty of the Individual in Digital Healthcare in the Era of Artificial Intelligence
Number №3, 2025
Digital Health: Forecast for 2025-2030
Number №2, 2025
Digital technologies in remote monitoring of childbirth with a Clinical decision support system (CDSS)
Number №1, 2025
Digital technologies for health promotion and disease prevention in older adults
Number №4, 2024
Computer reconstruction of the interaction of genes associated with Angelman syndrome
Number №3, 2024
Telemedicine today: trends in the use of telemedicine consultations based on regional experience
Number №2, 2024
Mobile apps for psychological well-being: user attitudes and definition of requirements
Number №1, 2024
Diagnosis in the era of digital medicine
Number №4, 2023
Artificial intelligence in Russian healthcare: collecting and preparing data for machine learning
Number №3, 2023
China as a supplier of medical equipment in the Russian Federation. Options for cooperation and features of working with Chinese suppliers
Number №2, 2023
Experience in teaching telemedicine in the system of higher professional education The attitude of medical workers to telemedicine technologies
Number №4, 2022
Physician burnout: the hidden healthcare crisis. Results of an online survey of doctors
Number №3, 2022
Interaction of clinical and diagnostic medicine. Results of an online survey of doctors
Number №2, 2022
Mobile applications for mental health self-management: a review of customers’ opinions Ultrasound robots: ready-to-use solutions and perspective directions
Number №1, 2022
Digital transformation of the pathological service as a way to improve the quality of medical care
Number №4, 2021
Clinical guidelines of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation: are doctors ready to follow them? Results of an online survey of doctors.
Number №3, 2021
Виртуальная реальность (VR) в клинической медицине: международный и российский опыт
Number №2, 2021
Дистанционные консультации пациентов: что изменилось за 20 лет?
Number №1, 2021
Experience of participation in the blood pressure telemonitoring pilot project of the Ministry of Healthcare
Number №4, 2020
Автоматизация процесса выявления у беременных заболевания COVID-19
Number №3, 2020
Remote cognitive behavioral therapy for stress disorder associated with the COVID-19 pandemic
Number №2, 2020
Distance education at a medical school during the COVID-19 pandemic: the first experience through the eyes of students
Number №1-2, 2018
Ответственность при использовании телемедицины: врач или юрист Скрининг меланомы: искусственный интеллект, mHealth и теледерматология
Number №3, 2018 год
II Всероссийский форум по телемедицине, цифровизации здравоохранения и медицинскому маркетингу «ТЕЛЕМЕДФОРУМ 2019» Эффективность телемедицинских консультаций «пациент-врач» Телереабилитация: рандомизированное исследование исходов
Number №1-2, 2019
Роль искусственного интеллекта в медицине Информационная система поддержки принятия врачебных решений
Number №1, 2020
Technologies for continuous monitoring of blood pressure: prospects for practical application Telemedicine technologies in the Chinese army
Number №2, 2017
Primary telemedicine consultation "patient-doctor": first systematization of methodology
Number №1, 2017
1. A systematic review of using Internet messengers in telemedicine 2. Telemedicine and social networks in the fight against drug addiction
Number №1, 2016
1. The Experience of the Telehealth Network of Minas Gerais, Brazil 2. The Remote Monitoring of Patients with Congestive Heart Failure:The Organizational Impact..
Number №1, 2015
Teleassessment for diagnosis and treatment in urology Efficiency of telemedicine at the northern regions Russian Federation A.L. Tsaregorodtsev

Clinical guidelines of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation: are doctors ready to follow them? Results of an online survey of doctors

DOI: 10.29188/2712-9217-2021-7-4-7-16
For citation: Khodyreva L.A., Shaderkina V.A. Clinical guidelines of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation: are doctors ready to follow them? Results of an online survey of doctors. Russian Journal of Telemedicine and E-Health 2021;7(4):7-16; https://doi.org/10.29188/2712-9217-2021-7-4-7-16
Khodyreva L.A., Shaderkina V.A.
Information about authors:

Khodyreva L.A. – MD, PhD, Head of the Organizational and Methodologi- cal Unit for Urology, Moscow Department of Health; Moscow, Russia; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0751-4982
Shaderkina V.A. – MD, Scientific editor of the urological information portal UroWeb.ru; Moscow, Russia; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8940-4129

17309
Download PDF

Introduction. Clinical guidelines are a collection of documents developed by professional communities and containing structured clinical information on etiology, pathogenesis, symptoms, methods of diagnosis, treatment and rehabilitation of patients. Medical specialists of the Russian Federation are informed about the need to comply with the recommendations from January 1, 2022, and have completely different reactions to this fact.

The purpose of the article is to analyze the results of an Internet survey of Russian doctors in their attitude to the necessity and possibility of following clinical guidelines.

Materials and methods. In total, 2487 Russian doctors took part in the survey, which lasted from July 21, 21 to October 30, 21, who, after identification on the resources listed above, were asked questions with multiple answers: 1. Region of the doctor's work, 2. Medical specialty, 3. Do you think Russian doctors need clinical guidelines? 4. Should clinical guidelines be publicly available? 5. To what extent are you ready to apply the clinical guidelines? 6. Do you consider it permissible to include phytopreparations, dietary supplements in the national clinical guidelines? 7. Do you consider it permissible to mention the trade names of drugs in the clinical guidelines? 8. How often should clinical guidelines be updated?

Results. The attitude of Russian doctors to clinical guidelines is heterogeneous - out of 2,487 respondents, 52.96% are ready to apply clinical guidelines in some typical cases, 33.78% are absolutely ready to follow clinical guidelines, 10.74% consider it rather unnecessary, and 3.18% categorically against clinical guidelines. 1237 (49.74%) survey participants believe that clinical guidelines must be in the public domain exclusively for doctors and / or medical professionals. 1250 (50.26%) specialists opposed open access, in particular, due to the inadmissibility of familiarization with the clinical guidelines of patients. Most of the survey participants of 1916 people (77.04%) consider it permissible to include phytopreparations and dietary supplements in clinical guidelines in the form of separate chapters, with a mention and references to clinical studies.

Conclusions. The main barriers hindering the implementation of clinical guidelines into clinical practice are the level of equipment of medical facilities, lack of time due to staff shortages, availability of clinical guidelines, lack of awareness and disagreement of doctors with the content of clinical guidelines, and their low motivation. Clinical guidelines should be the "starting point" in decision-making, but unconditional implementation of clinical guidelines cannot be required in the current health care system and the lack of legal protection of doctors. The format for the application of clinical guidelines in the work of doctors requires legal elaboration, strict compliance with the International Classification of Diseases (ICD).

Attachment Size
Download 1.03 MB
Keywords: clinical guidelines; Internet survey; doctors