10 years of mindlines: A systematic review and commentary

92Citations
Citations of this article
274Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: In 2004, Gabbay and le May showed that clinicians generally base their decisions on mindlines-internalised and collectively reinforced tacit guidelines-rather than consulting written clinical guidelines. We considered how the concept of mindlines has been taken forward since. Methods: We searched databases from 2004 to 2014 for the term 'mindline(s)' and tracked all sources citing Gabbay and le May's 2004 article. We read and re-read papers to gain familiarity and developed an interpretive analysis and taxonomy by drawing on the principles of meta-narrative systematic review. Results: In our synthesis of 340 papers, distinguished between authors who used mindlines purely in name ('nominal' view) sometimes dismissing them as a harmful phenomenon, and authors who appeared to have understood the term's philosophical foundations. The latter took an 'in-practice' view (studying how mindlines emerge and spread in real-world settings), a 'theoretical and philosophical' view (extending theory) or a 'solution focused' view (exploring how to promote and support mindline development). We found that it is not just clinicians who develop mindlines: so do patients, in face-to-face and (potentially) online communities. Conclusions: The concept of mindlines challenges the naïve rationalist view of knowledge implicit in some EBM publications, but the term appears to have been misunderstood (and prematurely dismissed) by some authors. By further studying mindlines empirically and theoretically, there is potential to expand EBM's conceptual toolkit to produce richer forms of 'evidence-based' knowledge. We outline a suggested research agenda for achieving this goal.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Wieringa, S., & Greenhalgh, T. (2015, April 9). 10 years of mindlines: A systematic review and commentary. Implementation Science. BioMed Central Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0229-x

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free