Dataset Information

Prioritization approaches in the development of health practice guidelines: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Given the considerable efforts and resources required to develop practice guidelines, developers need to prioritize what topics and questions to address. This study aims to identify and describe prioritization approaches in the development of clinical, public health, or health systems guidelines. METHODS:We searched Medline and CINAHL electronic databases in addition to Google Scholar. We included papers describing prioritization approaches in sufficient detail allowing for reproducibility. We synthesized findings in a semi-quantitative way. We followed an iterative process to develop a common framework of prioritization criteria that captures all of the criteria reported by each included study. RESULTS:Our search captured 33,339 unique citations out of which we identified 10 papers reporting prioritization approaches for guideline development. All of the identified approaches focused on prioritizing guideline topics but none on prioritizing recommendation questions or outcomes. The two most frequently reported steps of the development process for these approaches were reviewing the grey literature (9 out of 10, 90%) and engaging various stakeholders (9 out of 10, 90%). We derived a common framework of 20 prioritization criteria that can be used when prioritizing guideline topics. The most frequently reported criteria were the health burden of disease which was included in all of the approaches, practice variation (8 out of 10, 80%), and impact on health outcomes (7 out of 10, 70%). Two of the identified approaches stood out as being comprehensive and detailed. CONCLUSIONS:We described 10 prioritization approaches in the development of health practice guidelines. There is a need to assess the effectiveness, efficiency and transparency of the identified approaches and to develop standardized and validated priority setting tools.

SUBMITTER: El-Harakeh A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6792189 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Prioritization approaches in the development of health practice guidelines: a systematic review.

El-Harakeh Amena A Morsi Rami Z RZ Fadlallah Racha R Bou-Karroum Lama L Lotfi Tamara T Akl Elie A EA

BMC health services research 20191015 1

<h4>Background</h4>Given the considerable efforts and resources required to develop practice guidelines, developers need to prioritize what topics and questions to address. This study aims to identify and describe prioritization approaches in the development of clinical, public health, or health systems guidelines.<h4>Methods</h4>We searched Medline and CINAHL electronic databases in addition to Google Scholar. We included papers describing prioritization approaches in sufficient detail allowing ...[more]

PMID: 31615509

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The development of trustworthy guidelines requires substantial investment of resources and time. This highlights the need to prioritize topics for guideline development and update. OBJECTIVE:To systematically identify and describe prioritization exercises that have been conducted for the purpose of the de novo development, update or adaptation of health practice guidelines. METHODS:We searched Medline and CINAHL electronic databases from inception to July 2019, supplemented by hand-searching Google Scholar and the reference lists of relevant studies. We included studies describing prioritization exercises that have been conducted during the de novo development, update or adaptation of guidelines addressing clinical, public health or health systems topics. Two reviewers worked independently and in duplicate to complete study selection and data extraction. We consolidated findings in a semi-quantitative and narrative way. RESULTS:Out of 33,339 identified citations, twelve studies met the eligibility criteria. All included studies focused on prioritizing topics; none on questions or outcomes. While three exercises focused on updating guidelines, nine were on de novo development. All included studies addressed clinical topics. We adopted a framework that categorizes prioritization into 11 steps clustered in three phases (pre-prioritization, prioritization and post-prioritization). Four studies covered more than half of the 11 prioritization steps across the three phases. The most frequently reported steps for generating initial list of topics were stakeholders' input (n = 8) and literature review (n = 7). The application of criteria to determine research priorities was used in eight studies. We used and updated a common framework of 22 prioritization criteria, clustered in 6 domains. The most frequently reported criteria related to the health burden of disease (n = 9) and potential impact of the intervention on health outcomes (n = 5). All the studies involved health care providers in the prioritization exercises. Only one study involved patients. There was a variation in the number and type of the prioritization exercises' outputs. CONCLUSIONS:This review included 12 prioritization exercises that addressed different aspects of priority setting for guideline development and update that can guide the work of researchers, funders, and other stakeholders seeking to prioritize guideline topics.

Project description:ObjectiveFew methodological studies address the prioritization of clinical topics for the development of Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs). The aim of this study was to validate a methodology for Priority Determination of Topics (PDT) of CPGs.Methods and resultsFirstly, we developed an instrument for PDT with 41 criteria that were grouped under 10 domains, based on a comprehensive systematic search. Secondly, we performed a survey of stakeholders involved in CPGs development, and end users of guidelines, using the instrument. Thirdly, a pilot testing of the PDT procedure was performed in order to choose 10 guideline topics among 34 proposed projects; using a multi-criteria analysis approach, we validated a mechanism that followed five stages: determination of the composition of groups, item/domain scoring, weights determination, quality of the information used to support judgments, and finally, topic selection. Participants first scored the importance of each domain, after which four different weighting procedures were calculated (including the survey results). The process of weighting was determined by correlating the data between them. We also reported the quality of evidence used for PDT. Finally, we provided a qualitative analysis of the process. The main domains used to support judgement, having higher quality scores and weightings, were feasibility, disease burden, implementation and information needs. Other important domains such as user preferences, adverse events, potential for health promotion, social effects, and economic impact had lower relevance for clinicians. Criteria for prioritization were mainly judged through professional experience, while good quality information was only used in 15% of cases.ConclusionThe main advantages of the proposed methodology are supported by the use of a systematic approach to identify, score and weight guideline topics selection, limiting or exposing the influence of personal biases. However, the methodology was complex and included a number of quantitative and qualitative approaches reflecting the difficulties of the prioritization process.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Guidelines and quality indicators (for example as part of a quality assurance scheme) aim to improve health care delivery and health outcomes. Ideally, the development of quality indicators should be grounded in evidence-based, trustworthy guideline recommendations. However, anecdotally, guidelines and quality assurance schemes are developed independently, by different groups of experts who employ different methodologies. We conducted an extension and update of a previous systematic review to identify, describe and evaluate approaches to the integrated development of guidelines and related quality indicators. METHODS:On May 24th, 2019 we searched in Medline, Embase and CINAHL and included studies if they reported a methodological approach to guideline-based quality indicator development and were published in English, French, or German. RESULTS:Out of 16,034 identified records, we included 17 articles that described a method to integrate guideline recommendations development and quality indicator development. Added to the 13 method articles from original systematic review we included a total 30 method articles. We did not find any evaluation studies. In most approaches, guidelines were a source of evidence to inform the quality indicator development. The criteria to select recommendations (e.g. level of evidence or strength of the recommendation) and to generate, select and assess quality indicators varied widely. We found methodological approaches that linked guidelines and quality indicator development explicitly, however none of the articles reported a conceptual framework that fully integrated quality indicator development into the guideline process or where quality indicator development was part of the question formulation for developing the guideline recommendations. CONCLUSIONS:In our systematic review we found approaches which explicitly linked guidelines with quality indicator development, nevertheless none of the articles reported a comprehensive and well-defined conceptual framework which integrated quality indicator development fully into the guideline development process.

Project description:BackgroundClinical practice guidelines are an important source of information, designed to help clinicians integrate research evidence into their clinical practice. Digital education is increasingly used for clinical practice guideline dissemination and adoption. Our aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of digital education in improving the adoption of clinical practice guidelines.MethodsWe performed a systematic review and searched seven electronic databases from January 1990 to September 2018. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We included studies in any language evaluating the effectiveness of digital education on clinical practice guidelines compared to other forms of education or no intervention in healthcare professionals. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach to assess the quality of the body of evidence.ResultsSeventeen trials involving 2382 participants were included. The included studies were diverse with a largely unclear or high risk of bias. They mostly focused on physicians, evaluated computer-based interventions with limited interactivity and measured participants' knowledge and behaviour. With regard to knowledge, studies comparing the effect of digital education with no intervention showed a moderate, statistically significant difference in favour of digital education intervention (SMD?=?0.85, 95% CI 0.16, 1.54; I2 =?83%, n =?3, moderate quality of evidence). Studies comparing the effect of digital education with traditional learning on knowledge showed a small, statistically non-significant difference in favour of digital education (SMD?=?0.23, 95% CI -?0.12, 0.59; I2 =?34%, n =?3, moderate quality of evidence). Three studies measured participants' skills and reported mixed results. Of four studies measuring satisfaction, three studies favoured digital education over traditional learning. Of nine studies evaluating healthcare professionals' behaviour change, only one study comparing email-delivered, spaced education intervention to no intervention reported improvement in the intervention group. Of three studies reporting patient outcomes, only one study comparing email-delivered, spaced education games to non-interactive online resources reported modest improvement in the intervention group. The quality of evidence for outcomes other than knowledge was mostly judged as low due to risk of bias, imprecision and/or inconsistency.ConclusionsHealth professions digital education on clinical practice guidelines is at least as effective as traditional learning and more effective than no intervention in terms of knowledge. Most studies report little or no difference in healthcare professionals' behaviours and patient outcomes. The only intervention shown to improve healthcare professionals' behaviour and modestly patient outcomes was email-delivered, spaced education. Future research should evaluate interactive, simulation-based and spaced forms of digital education and report on outcomes such as skills, behaviour, patient outcomes and cost.

Project description:Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a leading cause of death worldwide and is increasing exponentially particularly in low and middle income countries (LMIC). To inform the development of a standard Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG) for the acute management of TBI that can be implemented specifically for limited resource settings, we conducted a systematic review to identify and assess the quality of all currently available CPGs on acute TBI using the AGREE II instrument. In accordance with PRISMA guidelines, from April 2013 to December 2015 we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar and the Duke University Medical Center Library Guidelines for peer-reviewed published Clinical Practice Guidelines on the acute management of TBI (less than 24 hours), for any level of traumatic brain injury in both high and low income settings. A comprehensive reference and citation analysis was performed. CPGs found were assessed using the AGREE II instrument by five independent reviewers and scores were aggregated and reported in percentage of total possible score. An initial 2742 articles were evaluated with an additional 98 articles from the citation and reference analysis, yielding 273 full texts examined. A total of 24 final CPGs were included, of which 23 were from high income countries (HIC) and 1 from LMIC. Based on the AGREE II instrument, the best score on overall assessment was 100.0 for the CPG from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NIHCE, 2007), followed by the New Zealand Guidelines Group (NZ, 2006) and the National Clinical Guideline (SIGN, 2009) both with a score of 96.7. The CPG from a LMIC had lower scores than CPGs from higher income settings. Our study identified and evaluated 24 CPGs with the highest scores in clarity and presentation, scope and purpose, and rigor of development. Most of these CPGs were developed in HICs, with limited applicability or utility for resource limited settings. Stakeholder involvement, Applicability, and Editorial independence remain weak and insufficiently described specifically with piloting, addressing potential costs and implementation barriers, and auditing for quality improvement.

Project description:Partnering with people most affected by mental health problems can transform mental health outcomes. Citizen science as a research approach enables partnering with the public at a substantial scale, but there is scarce guidance on its use in mental health research. To develop best practise guidelines for conducting and reporting research, we conducted a systematic review of studies reporting mental health citizen science research. Documents were identified from electronic databases (n = 10), grey literature, conference proceedings, hand searching of specific journals and citation tracking. Document content was organised in NVIVO using the ten European Citizen Science Association (ECSA) citizen science principles. Best practise guidelines were developed by (a) identifying approaches specific to mental health research or where citizen science and mental health practises differ, (b) identifying relevant published reporting guidelines and methodologies already used in mental health research, and (c) identifying specific elements to include in reporting studies. A total of 14,063 documents were screened. Nine studies were included, from Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Netherlands, Spain, the UK, and the United States. Citizen scientists with lived experience of mental health problems were involved in data collection, analysis, project design, leadership, and dissemination of results. Most studies reported against some ECSA principles but reporting against these principles was often unclear and unstated. Best practise guidelines were developed, which identified mental health-specific issues relevant to citizen science, and reporting recommendations. These included citizen science as a mechanism for empowering people affected by mental health problems, attending to safeguarding issues such as health-related advice being shared between contributors, the use of existing health research reporting guidelines, evaluating the benefits for contributors and impact on researchers, explicit reporting of participation at each research stage, naming the citizen science platform and data repository, and clear reporting of consent processes, data ownership, and data sharing arrangements. We conclude that citizen science is feasible in mental health and can be complementary to other participatory approaches. It can contribute to active involvement, engagement, and knowledge production with the public. The proposed guidelines will support the quality of citizen science reporting.

Project description:IntroductionClinical practice guidelines can improve healthcare processes and patient outcomes, but are often of low quality. Guideline appraisal tools aim to help potential guideline users in assessing guideline quality. We conducted a systematic review of publications describing guideline appraisal tools in order to identify and compare existing tools.MethodsAmong others we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1995 to May 2011 for relevant primary and secondary publications. We also handsearched the reference lists of relevant publications. On the basis of the available literature we firstly generated 34 items to be used in the comparison of appraisal tools and grouped them into thirteen quality dimensions. We then extracted formal characteristics as well as questions and statements of the appraisal tools and assigned them to the items.ResultsWe identified 40 different appraisal tools. They covered between three and thirteen of the thirteen possible quality dimensions and between three and 29 of the possible 34 items. The main focus of the appraisal tools were the quality dimensions "evaluation of evidence" (mentioned in 35 tools; 88%), "presentation of guideline content" (34 tools; 85%), "transferability" (33 tools; 83%), "independence" (32 tools; 80%), "scope" (30 tools; 75%), and "information retrieval" (29 tools; 73%). The quality dimensions "consideration of different perspectives" and "dissemination, implementation and evaluation of the guideline" were covered by only twenty (50%) and eighteen tools (45%) respectively.ConclusionsMost guideline appraisal tools assess whether the literature search and the evaluation, synthesis and presentation of the evidence in guidelines follow the principles of evidence-based medicine. Although conflicts of interest and norms and values of guideline developers, as well as patient involvement, affect the trustworthiness of guidelines, they are currently insufficiently considered. Greater focus should be placed on these issues in the further development of guideline appraisal tools.

Project description:Background: The development of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (EB-CPGs) has increasing global growth; however, the certainty of impact on patients and health systems, as well as the magnitude of the impact, is not apparent. The objective of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness of the application of EB-CPGs for the improvement of the quality of health care in three dimensions: structure, process and results in the patient for the management of cardiovascular disease. Methods: We followed the methods described by the Cochrane Handbook and present a descriptive analysis because of the high heterogeneity found across the included studies. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, as well as the grey literature, between 1990 and June 2016. No language restrictions were applied. Only randomised clinical trials (RCTs) were selected. Three authors independently carried out the data extraction, using a modified version of the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care form. Results: Of the total of 84 interventions included in the nine RCTs evaluated, three (4%) were related to health care structure, 54 (64%) to the health care delivery process and 27 (32%) to patient outcomes. Regarding the impact of using the EB-CPGs, in 55 interventions (65%), there were no significant differences between control and experimental groups. In four interventions (5%), the result favoured the control group, and the result favoured the intervention group on 25 of the interventions (30%). Conclusions: This systematic review showed that EB-CPGs could be useful to improve the process and structure of health care and, to a lesser extent, to improve the patients' outcomes. After analysing many studies, we could have one more hypothesis for further research, which could shed more light upon those undiscovered variables that might interfere with the use of the EB-CPGs. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42013003589.

Dataset Information

Prioritization approaches in the development of health practice guidelines: a systematic review.

Publications

Prioritization approaches in the development of health practice guidelines: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets