1.  Despite the greater attention in CPGs, It’s adoption and utilization by practicing clinicians are not high There remains the gap between the development and implementation of CPGs  In order to promote CPGs implementation, Strategies reflects the various impact factors by identifying and understanding the facilitators and barriers of implementation  However, previous studies focused on individual level Lack of awareness and familiarity toward CPGs Lack of agreement, self-efficacy, and outcome expectancy  Structured questionnaire with RE-AIM dimension  E-mail Survey Nov 1 st ~ Nov 30 th 2012 Collaboration with Korea Academy of Medical Sciences(KAMS), Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention(KCDC) 305 physicians responded  CPGs for Sexually Transmitted Infection Developed by The Korean Association of Urogenital Tract Infection and Inflammation in 2011 Adaptation methodology, 1 s edition Category (Reference)EXP(B)95% CIP-value Sex (Male) ref. Female.8770.5-1.6.666 Hospital type (Clinic) ref. Hospital.9020.5-1.5.708 Doctor’s career ref. 6-10yr2.5271.1-5.9.033 11yr ≤ 1.3280.6-2.8.445 CPG education (No) ref. Yes2.6141.3-5.4.010 Hospital location (Metropolitan city)ref. County1.1530.7-1.8.630 Figure 1. Level of Reach and Implementation according to hospital type (%) Table 2. Factors affecting the dissemination(Reach) of STI CPGs Table 3. Factors affecting the implementation of STI CPGs Compared to level of Reach, level of Implementation in practice was low in clinics and hospitals Affecting factor in Reach area were doctor’s career and experience of CPG education Affecting factor in Implementation area were factors of effectiveness and adoption such as Availability and Organizational condition RE-AIM framework can be performed as a useful tools that making the effective strategies and enabling prioritization of implementation strategies  Applying the RE-AIM framework, Evaluate the effects of various processes affecting the dissemination and implementation of CPGs Recognition Reach Accessibility Availability Effectiveness Assistance Organizational conditions Adoption Accessibility Use in practice Implementation Period Category (Reference)EXP(B)95% CIP-value Sex (Male) ref. Female.4490.2-1.1.065 Hospital type (Clinic)ref. Hospital1.1800.6-2.5.658 Doctor’s career ref. 6-10yr2.9630.9-10.1.083 11yr ≤2.2480.7-6.9.155 Hospital location(Metropolitan city) ref. County.8800.5-1.7.694 CPG education (No) ref. Yes4.1370.6-3.3.391 Availability (No) Yes4.5131.2-17.1.027 Assistance (No) Yes.9920.2-5.8.993 Organizational condition (Poor) Good3.5941.5-8.7.005 VariablesClinic(n=243)Hospital(n=99) Sex Male212(87.2)52(58.4) Female31(12.8)37(41.6) Age 20-29yr11(4.5)3(3.4) 30-39yr73(30.0)42(47.2) 40-49yr71(29.2)30(33.7) 50-59yr68(28.0)10(11.2) over 60yr20(8.2)4(4.5) Doctor’s career 1-5yr21(8.6)17(19.1) 6-10yr38(15.6)22(24.7) over 11184(75.7)50(56.2) CPG education Yes214(88.1)73(82.0) No29(11.9)16(18.0) Hospital location Metropolitan city139(57.2)56(62.9) County104(42.8)33(37.1) Table 1. General characteristics of the study population