Dataset Information

World Health Organization guideline development: an evaluation.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Research in 2007 showed that World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations were largely based on expert opinion, rarely used systematic evidence-based methods, and did not follow the organization's own "Guidelines for Guidelines". In response, the WHO established a "Guidelines Review Committee" (GRC) to implement and oversee internationally recognized standards. We examined the impact of these changes on WHO guideline documents and explored senior staff's perceptions of the new procedures.

Methods and findings

We used the AGREE II guideline appraisal tool to appraise ten GRC-approved guidelines from nine WHO departments, and ten pre-GRC guidelines matched by department and topic. We interviewed 20 senior staff across 16 departments and analyzed the transcripts using the framework approach. Average AGREE II scores for GRC-approved guidelines were higher across all six AGREE domains compared with pre-GRC guidelines. The biggest changes were noted for "Rigour of Development" (up 37.6%, from 30.7% to 68.3%) and "Editorial Independence" (up 52.7%, from 20.9% to 73.6%). Four main themes emerged from the interviews: (1) high standards were widely recognized as essential for WHO credibility, particularly with regard to conflicts of interest; (2) views were mixed on whether WHO needed a single quality assurance mechanism, with some departments purposefully bypassing the procedures; (3) staff expressed some uncertainties in applying the GRADE approach, with departmental staff concentrating on technicalities while the GRC remained concerned the underlying principles were not fully institutionalized; (4) the capacity to implement the new standards varied widely, with many departments looking to an overstretched GRC for technical support.

Conclusions

Since 2007, WHO guideline development methods have become more systematic and transparent. However, some departments are bypassing the procedures, and as yet neither the GRC, nor the quality assurance standards they have set, are fully embedded within the organization.

SUBMITTER: Sinclair D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3669321 | biostudies-literature | 2013

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

World Health Organization guideline development: an evaluation.

Sinclair David D Isba Rachel R Kredo Tamara T Zani Babalwa B Smith Helen H Garner Paul P

PloS one 20130531 5

<h4>Background</h4>Research in 2007 showed that World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations were largely based on expert opinion, rarely used systematic evidence-based methods, and did not follow the organization's own "Guidelines for Guidelines". In response, the WHO established a "Guidelines Review Committee" (GRC) to implement and oversee internationally recognized standards. We examined the impact of these changes on WHO guideline documents and explored senior staff's perceptions of the ...[more]

PMID: 23741299

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe World Health Organisation (WHO) publishes a large number of clinical practice and public health guidelines to promote evidence-based practice across the world. Due to the variety of health system capacities and contextual issues in different regions and countries, adapting the recommendations in the guidelines to the local situation is vital for the success of their implementation. We aim to understand the range of experiences with guideline adaptation from the perspectives of those working in WHO regional and country offices. Our findings will inform development of guidance on how to improve adaptability of WHO guidelines.MethodsA grounded theory-informed, qualitative study was carried out between March 2018 and December 2018. Seventeen semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants who included WHO guideline developers and staff in the headquarters, regional and country offices recruited from a sample of published WHO guidelines. Participants were eligible for recruitment if they had recent experience in clinical practice or public health guideline implementation. Deidentified transcripts of these interview were analysed through three cycles of coding.ResultsWe categorised the adaptation processes described by the participants into two dominant models along a spectrum of guideline adaptation processes. First, the Copy or Customise Model is a pragmatic approach of either copying or customising WHO guidelines to suit local needs. This is done by local health authorities and/or clinicians directly through consultations with WHO staff. Selections and adjustments of guideline recommendations are made according to what the implementers deemed important, feasible and applicable through the consensus discussions. Second, the Capacity Building Model focuses on WHO building local capacity in evidence synthesis methods and adaptation frameworks to support local development of a national guideline informed by international guidelines.ConclusionsIn comparing and contrasting these two models of guideline adaptation, we outline the different kinds of support from WHO that may be necessary to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the respective models. We also suggest clarifications in the descriptions of the process of guideline adaptation in WHO and academic literature, to help guideline adaptors and implementers decide on the appropriate course of action according to their specific circumstances.EthicsThis project was conducted with ethics approval from The University of Sydney (Project number: 2017/723) and WHO (Protocol ID: 00001).

Project description:ObjectivesWorld Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for health programmes and healthcare delivery are the foundation of its technical leadership in public health and essential to decision-making globally. A key function of guideline development is to identify areas in which further evidence is needed because filling these gaps will lead to future improvements in population health. The objective of this study was to examine the knowledge gaps and research questions for addressing those gaps generated through the WHO guideline development process, with the goal of informing future strategies for improving and strengthening the guideline development process.Study designWe did a systematic, retrospective analysis of research questions identified in the published guidelines.MethodsWe analyzed guidelines published between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2018, by the Communicable Diseases Cluster in five disease areas: tuberculosis (TB), HIV, malaria, TB-HIV, and neglected tropical diseases (NTDs). Research questions were extracted independently by two researchers. We analyzed the distribution of research questions by disease and by topic category and did a qualitative assessment of optimum practice for research question generation during the guideline development process.ResultsA total of 48 guidelines were included: 26 on HIV, 1 on malaria, 11 on TB, 5 on TB/HIV, and 5 on NTDs. Overall, 36 (75%) guidelines encompassed a total of 360 explicit research questions; the remainder did not contain specific research questions. The number of research questions that focused on TB was 49, TB/HIV was 38, HIV was 250, and NTDs was 23. The number of research questions that focused on diagnosis was 43 (11.9%) of 360, prevention was 62 (17.2%), treatment was 103 (28.6%), good practice was 12 (3.3%), service delivery was 86 (23.8%), and other areas was 54 (15%). Research questions were often not formulated in a specific or actionable way and were hard to identify in the guideline. Examples of good practice identified by the review team involved the generation of specific and narrowly defined research questions, with accompanying recommendations for appropriate study design.ConclusionsThe WHO must strengthen its approach to identifying and presenting research questions during the guideline development process. Ensuring access to research questions is a key next step in adding value to the guideline development process.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Neonatal sepsis is a leading cause of mortality, yet the recommended inpatient treatment options are inaccessible to most families in low-income settings. In 2015, the World Health Organization released a guideline for outpatient treatment of young infants (0-59 days of age) with possible serious bacterial infection (PSBI) with simplified antibiotic regimens when referral was not feasible. If implemented widely, this guideline could prevent many deaths. Our implementation research evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of implementing the WHO guideline through the existing health system in Malawi. METHODS:A prospective cohort study was conducted in 12 first-level health facilities in Ntcheu district. Trained health workers identified and treated young infants with PSBI signs with injection gentamicin for 2 days and oral amoxicillin for 7 days, whereas those with only fast breathing were treated with oral amoxicillin for 7 days. Health Surveillance Assistants (HSAs) were trained to promote care-seeking and to conduct home visits on day 3 and 6 to assess infants under treatment, encourage treatment adherence and remind the caregiver to return for facility follow up. Infants receiving outpatient treatment were followed up at health facility on day 4 and 8. The primary outcome was proportion of outpatient cases completing treatment per protocol. FINDINGS:A total of 358 infants received outpatient treatment (202 clinical severe infection, 156 only fast breathing) from February to September 2017. Of these, 92.7% (332/358) met criteria for treatment completion and 88.8% (318/358) completed the day 4 follow-up. Twelve (3.4%) young infants clinically failed treatment with no reported deaths in those treated at outpatient level. This treatment failure rate was lower than those reported for the simplified regimens tested in the SATT (8-10%) and AFRINEST (5-8%) equivalency trials. More than half of infants (58.1%; 208/358) received HSA follow-up visits on days 3 and 6. CONCLUSION:Study results demonstrate the feasibility of outpatient treatment for sick young infants when referral is not feasible in Malawi, which will inform scale-up in other parts of Malawi and countries with similar health system constraints.

Project description:BACKGROUND:To examine cross-national patterns and correlates of lifetime and 12-month comorbid DSM-IV anxiety disorders among people with lifetime and 12-month DSM-IV major depressive disorder (MDD). METHOD:Nationally or regionally representative epidemiological interviews were administered to 74 045 adults in 27 surveys across 24 countries in the WHO World Mental Health (WMH) Surveys. DSM-IV MDD, a wide range of comorbid DSM-IV anxiety disorders, and a number of correlates were assessed with the WHO Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI). RESULTS:45.7% of respondents with lifetime MDD (32.0-46.5% inter-quartile range (IQR) across surveys) had one of more lifetime anxiety disorders. A slightly higher proportion of respondents with 12-month MDD had lifetime anxiety disorders (51.7%, 37.8-54.0% IQR) and only slightly lower proportions of respondents with 12-month MDD had 12-month anxiety disorders (41.6%, 29.9-47.2% IQR). Two-thirds (68%) of respondents with lifetime comorbid anxiety disorders and MDD reported an earlier age-of-onset (AOO) of their first anxiety disorder than their MDD, while 13.5% reported an earlier AOO of MDD and the remaining 18.5% reported the same AOO of both disorders. Women and previously married people had consistently elevated rates of lifetime and 12-month MDD as well as comorbid anxiety disorders. Consistently higher proportions of respondents with 12-month anxious than non-anxious MDD reported severe role impairment (64.4 v. 46.0%; ? 2 1 = 187.0, p < 0.001) and suicide ideation (19.5 v. 8.9%; ? 2 1 = 71.6, p < 0.001). Significantly more respondents with 12-month anxious than non-anxious MDD received treatment for their depression in the 12 months before interview, but this difference was more pronounced in high-income countries (68.8 v. 45.4%; ? 2 1 = 108.8, p < 0.001) than low/middle-income countries (30.3 v. 20.6%; ? 2 1 = 11.7, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Patterns and correlates of comorbid DSM-IV anxiety disorders among people with DSM-IV MDD are similar across WMH countries. The narrow IQR of the proportion of respondents with temporally prior AOO of anxiety disorders than comorbid MDD (69.6-74.7%) is especially noteworthy. However, the fact that these proportions are not higher among respondents with 12-month than lifetime comorbidity means that temporal priority between lifetime anxiety disorders and MDD is not related to MDD persistence among people with anxious MDD. This, in turn, raises complex questions about the relative importance of temporally primary anxiety disorders as risk markers v. causal risk factors for subsequent MDD onset and persistence, including the possibility that anxiety disorders might primarily be risk markers for MDD onset and causal risk factors for MDD persistence.

Dataset Information

World Health Organization guideline development: an evaluation.

Background

Methods and findings

Conclusions

Publications

World Health Organization guideline development: an evaluation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets