Dataset Information

Development of rapid guidelines: 2. A qualitative study with WHO guideline developers.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Situations such as public health emergencies and outbreaks necessitate the development and publication of high-quality recommendations within a condensed timeframe. For example, WHO has produced examples of and guidance for the development of rapid guidelines (RGs). However, more information is needed to understand the experiences and perceptions of guideline developers. This is the second of a series of three articles addressing methodological issues around RGs. This study describes the perceptions and experiences of guideline developers at WHO about RGs. METHODS:We conducted interviews consisting of open- and closed-ended questions with guideline developers at WHO. Our analysis described the definition and rationale of RGs, the differences from regular guidelines with regard to timelines from topic definition until publication, barriers to identifying the evidence and the lack of a standard methodology to develop RGs. RESULTS:We interviewed 10 participants, the majority of whom were comfortable with the current WHO definition of RGs. Most stated that the rationale for developing RGs should be in response to new evidence about efficacy, cost-effectiveness or safety. Respondents differed with regards to the amount of time RGs should take. While the majority of participants agreed that guidelines should be based on a systematic review, this step in the process was considered the most time and resource intensive. Challenges for developing RGs included limited personnel and financial resources as well as the lack of evidence. Facilitators, in turn, that may improve RG development include additional financial and personnel resources as well as the use of virtual meetings. CONCLUSIONS:While our study suggests a strong need and rationale for the development of RGs, standardisation of timelines and guidance on panel composition, peer-review process, conduct of meetings and sources of permissible evidence require further research.

SUBMITTER: Florez ID

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6044000 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Development of rapid guidelines: 2. A qualitative study with WHO guideline developers.

Florez Ivan D ID Morgan Rebecca L RL Falavigna Maicon M Kowalski Sérgio C SC Zhang Yuan Y Etxeandia-Ikobaltzeta Itziar I Santesso Nancy N Wiercioch Wojtek W Schünemann Holger J HJ

Health research policy and systems 20180713 1

<h4>Background</h4>Situations such as public health emergencies and outbreaks necessitate the development and publication of high-quality recommendations within a condensed timeframe. For example, WHO has produced examples of and guidance for the development of rapid guidelines (RGs). However, more information is needed to understand the experiences and perceptions of guideline developers. This is the second of a series of three articles addressing methodological issues around RGs. This study de ...[more]

PMID: 30005710

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Many organisations in Australia undertake systematic reviews to inform development of evidence-based guidelines or would like to do so. However, the substantial resources required to produce systematic reviews limit the feasibility of evidence-based approaches to guideline development. We are working with Australian guideline developers to design, build and test systems that make creating evidence-based guidelines easier and more efficient. Methods: To understand the evidence needs of guideline developers and to inform the development of potential tools and services, we conducted 16 semi-structured interviews with Australian guideline developers. Developers were involved in different types of guidelines, represented both new and established guideline groups, and had access to widely different levels of resources. Results: All guideline developers recognised the importance of having access to timely evidence to support their processes, but were frequently overwhelmed by the scale of this task. Groups developing new guidelines often underestimated the time, expertise and work involved in completing searching and screening. Many were grappling with the challenge of updating and were keen to explore alternatives to the blanket updating of the full guideline. Horizon-scanning and evidence signalling were seen as providing more pragmatic approaches to updating, although some were wary of challenges posed by receiving evidence on a too-frequent basis. Respondents were aware that new technologies, such as machine learning, offered potentially large time and resource savings. Conclusions: As well as the constant challenge of managing financial constraints, Australian guideline developers seeking to develop clinical guidelines face several critical challenges. These include acquiring appropriate methodological expertise, investing in information technology, coping with the proliferation of research output, feasible publication and dissemination options, and keeping guidance up to date.

Project description:BackgroundA variety of systems have been developed to grade evidence and develop recommendations based on the available evidence. However, development of guidelines for medical tests is especially challenging given the typical indirectness of the evidence; direct evidence of the effects of testing on patient important outcomes is usually absent. We compared grading systems for medical tests on how they use evidence in guideline development.MethodsWe used a systematic strategy to look for grading systems specific to medical tests in PubMed, professional guideline websites, via personal correspondence, and handsearching back references of key articles. Using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument as a starting point, we defined two sets of characteristics to describe these systems: methodological and process ones. Methodological characteristics are features relating to how evidence is gathered, appraised, and used in recommendations. Process characteristics are those relating to the guideline development process. Data were extracted in duplicate and differences resolved through discussion.ResultsTwelve grading systems could be included. All varied in the degree to which methodological and process characteristics were addressed. Having a clinical scenario, identifying the care pathway and/or developing an analytical framework, having explicit criteria for appraising and linking indirect evidence, and having explicit methodologies for translating evidence into recommendations were least frequently addressed. Five systems at most addressed these, to varying degrees of explicitness and completeness. Process wise, features most frequently addressed included involvement of relevant professional groups (8/12), external peer review of completed guidelines (9/12), and recommendations on methods for dissemination (8/12). Characteristics least often addressed were whether the system was piloted (3/12) and funder information (3/12).ConclusionsFive systems for grading evidence about medical tests in guideline development addressed to differing degrees of explicitness the need for and appraisal of different bodies of evidence, the linking of such evidence, and its translation into recommendations. At present, no one system addressed the full complexity of gathering, assessing and linking different bodies of evidence.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Clinical practice guidelines have become increasingly widely used to guide quality improvement of clinical practice. Qualitative research may be a useful way to improve the quality and implementation of guidelines. The methodology for qualitative evidence used in guidelines development is worthy of further research. METHODS:A comprehensive search was made of WHO, NICE, SIGN, NGC, RNAO, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang, CBM, and VIP from January 1, 2011 to February 25, 2020. Guidelines which met IOM criteria and were focused on clinical questions using qualitative research or qualitative evidence, were included. Four authors extracted significant information and entered this onto data extraction forms. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool was used to evaluate the guidelines' quality. The data were analyzed using SPSS version 17.0 and R version 3.3.2. RESULTS:Sixty four guidelines were identified. The overall quality of the guidelines was high (almost over 60%). Domain 1 (Scope and Purpose) was ranked the highest with a median score of 83% (IQ 78-83). Domain 2 (Stakeholder involvement) and Domain 5 (Applicability) were ranked the lowest with median scores of 67% (IQ 67-78) and 67% (IQ 63-73) respectively. 20% guidelines used qualitative research to identify clinical questions. 86% guidelines used qualitative evidence to support recommendations (mainly based on primary studies, a few on qualitative evidence synthesis). 19% guidelines applied qualitative evidence when considering facilitators and barriers to recommendations' implementation. 52% guideline developers evaluated the quality of the primary qualitative research study using the CASP tool or NICE checklist for qualitative studies. No guidelines evaluated the quality of qualitative evidence synthesis to formulate recommendations. 17% guidelines presented the level of qualitative research using the grade criteria of evidence and recommendation in different forms such as I, III, IV, very low. 28% guidelines described the grades of the recommendations supported by qualitative and quantitative evidence. No guidelines described the grade of recommendations only supported by qualitative evidence. CONCLUSIONS:The majority of the included guidelines were high-quality. Qualitative evidence was mainly used to identify clinical questions, support recommendations, and consider facilitators and barriers to implementation of recommendations'. However, more attention needs to be paid to the methodology. For example, no experts proficient in qualitative research were involved in guideline development groups, no assessment of the quality of qualitative evidence synthesis was included and there was lack of details reported on the level of qualitative evidence or grade of recommendations.

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).

Dataset Information

Development of rapid guidelines: 2. A qualitative study with WHO guideline developers.

Publications

Development of rapid guidelines: 2. A qualitative study with WHO guideline developers.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets