Despite the introduction of new tests and guidelines for diagnosis of tuberculosis (TB), worldwide case detection rate of TB is still suboptimal. This could be in part explained by the poor implementation of TB diagnostic guidelines. We aim to identify, appraise and synthesise qualitative evidence exploring the barriers and facilitators to implementing TB diagnostic guidelines.
A systematic review of qualitative studies will be conducted. Relevant electronic databases will be searched and studies included based on predefined inclusion criteria. We will also search reference lists, grey literature, conduct forward citation searches and contact relevant content experts. An adaptation of the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool will be used to assess the methodological quality of included studies. Two authors will review the search output, extract data and assess methodological quality independently, resolving any disagreements by consensus. We will use the thematic framework analysis approach based on the Supporting the Use of Research Evidence thematic framework to analyse and synthesise our data. We will apply the Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research approach to transparently assess our confidence in the findings of the systematic review.
This protocol has been registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), registration number CRD42016039790 TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO 2016: CRD42016039790. Available from http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/.

Maternal mortality remains a major international health problem in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), and most could have been prevented by quality improvement interventions already demonstrated to be effective, such as clinical guideline implementation strategies. The aim of this systematic review was to synthesise qualitative evidence on guideline implementation strategies to improve obstetric care practice in LMIC in order to identify barriers and enablers to their successful implementation.
We searched MEDLINE and CINAHL databases for articles reporting research findings on barriers and enablers to guideline implementation strategies in obstetric care practice in LMIC. We conducted a \"best fit\" framework synthesis of the included studies. We used an organisational \"stages of change\" model as our a priori framework for the synthesis.
Nine studies were included: all were based in Sub-Saharan Africa and in hospital health care facilities. The majority of studies (seven) evaluated one particular guideline implementation strategy: clinical audit and feedback (both criterion-based audit and maternal death reviews), and a minority (two) evaluated educational interventions. A range of barriers and enablers to successful guideline implementation was identified. A key finding of the framework synthesis was that \"high\" and \"low\" intrinsic health care professional motivation are overall enablers and barriers, respectively, of successful guideline implementation. We developed a modified \"stages of change\" model to take account of these findings.
We have identified a number of quality improvement processes that are amenable to change at limited or no additional cost, although some identified barriers may be difficult to address without increased resources. We note the pathways to implementation may be complex and require further research to develop our understanding of individual and organisational behaviours and motivation in LMIC settings.
PROSPERO CRD42015016062.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the dynamics of nurses\' work in implementing Clinical Practice Guidelines.
METHODS: Hybrid: systematic review techniques used to identify qualitative studies of clinical guideline implementation; theory-led and structured analysis of textual data.
METHODS: CINAHL, CSA Illumina, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Sociological Abstracts.
METHODS: Systematic review of qualitative studies of the implementation of Clinical Practice Guidelines, analysed using Directed Content Analysis, and interpreted in the light of Normalisation Process Theory.
RESULTS: Seven studies met the inclusion criteria of the review. These revealed that clinical practice guidelines are disposed to normalisation when: (a) They are associated with activities that practitioners can make workable in practice, and practitioners are able to integrate it into their collective workflow. (b) When they are differentiated from existing clinical practice by its proponents, and when claims of differentiation are regarded as legitimate by their potential users. (c) When they are associated with an emergent community of practice, and when members of that community of practice enrol each other into group processes that specify their engagement with it. (d) When they are associated with improvements in the collective knowledge of its users, and when users are able to integrate the application of that knowledge into their individual workflow. And, (e) when nurses can minimise disruption to behaviour norms and agreed professional roles, and mobilise structural and cognitive resources in ways that build shared commitments across professional boundaries.
CONCLUSIONS: This review demonstrates the feasibility and benefits of theory-led review of studies of nursing practice, and proposes a dynamic model of implementation. Normalisation Process Theory supports the analysis of nursing work. It characterises mechanisms by which work is made coherent and meaningful, is formed around sets of relational commitments, is enacted and contextualised, and is appraised and reconfigured. It facilitates such analysis from within the frame of nursing knowledge and practice itself.