E A Lomotan1, G Michel, Z Lin, R N Shiffman. 1. Yale Center for Medical Informatics, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut 06511, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the level of obligation conveyed by deontic terms (words such as "should", "may", "must" and "is indicated") commonly found in clinical practice guidelines. DESIGN: Cross-sectional electronic survey. SETTING: A clinical scenario was developed by the researchers, and recommendations containing 12 deontic terms and phrases were presented to the participants. PARTICIPANTS: All 1332 registrants of the 2008 annual conference of the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants indicated the level of obligation they believed guideline authors intended by using a slider mechanism ranging from "No obligation" (leftmost position recorded as 0) to "Full obligation" (rightmost position recorded as 100.) RESULTS: 445/1332 registrants (36%) submitted the on-line survey; 254/445 (57%) reported that they have experience in developing clinical practice guidelines; 133/445 (30%) indicated that they provide healthcare. "Must" conveyed the highest level of obligation (median = 100) and least amount of variability (interquartile range = 5.) "May" (median = 37) and "may consider" (median = 33) conveyed the lowest levels of obligation. All other terms conveyed intermediate levels of obligation characterised by wide and overlapping interquartile ranges. CONCLUSIONS: Members of the health services community believe guideline authors intend variable levels of obligation when using different deontic terms within practice recommendations. Ranking of a subset of terms by intended level of obligation is possible. Matching deontic terminology to the intended recommendation strength can help standardise the use of deontic terminology by guideline developers.
OBJECTIVE: To describe the level of obligation conveyed by deontic terms (words such as "should", "may", "must" and "is indicated") commonly found in clinical practice guidelines. DESIGN: Cross-sectional electronic survey. SETTING: A clinical scenario was developed by the researchers, and recommendations containing 12 deontic terms and phrases were presented to the participants. PARTICIPANTS: All 1332 registrants of the 2008 annual conference of the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants indicated the level of obligation they believed guideline authors intended by using a slider mechanism ranging from "No obligation" (leftmost position recorded as 0) to "Full obligation" (rightmost position recorded as 100.) RESULTS: 445/1332 registrants (36%) submitted the on-line survey; 254/445 (57%) reported that they have experience in developing clinical practice guidelines; 133/445 (30%) indicated that they provide healthcare. "Must" conveyed the highest level of obligation (median = 100) and least amount of variability (interquartile range = 5.) "May" (median = 37) and "may consider" (median = 33) conveyed the lowest levels of obligation. All other terms conveyed intermediate levels of obligation characterised by wide and overlapping interquartile ranges. CONCLUSIONS: Members of the health services community believe guideline authors intend variable levels of obligation when using different deontic terms within practice recommendations. Ranking of a subset of terms by intended level of obligation is possible. Matching deontic terminology to the intended recommendation strength can help standardise the use of deontic terminology by guideline developers.
Authors: Shawn R McMahon; Martha Iwamoto; Mehran S Massoudi; Hussain R Yusuf; John M Stevenson; Felicita David; Susan Y Chu; Larry K Pickering Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Richard N Shiffman; Paul Shekelle; J Marc Overhage; Jean Slutsky; Jeremy Grimshaw; Aniruddha M Deshpande Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2003-09-16 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: David Atkins; Dana Best; Peter A Briss; Martin Eccles; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Signe Flottorp; Gordon H Guyatt; Robin T Harbour; Margaret C Haugh; David Henry; Suzanne Hill; Roman Jaeschke; Gillian Leng; Alessandro Liberati; Nicola Magrini; James Mason; Philippa Middleton; Jacek Mrukowicz; Dianne O'Connell; Andrew D Oxman; Bob Phillips; Holger J Schünemann; Tessa Tan-Torres Edejer; Helena Varonen; Gunn E Vist; John W Williams; Stephanie Zaza Journal: BMJ Date: 2004-06-19
Authors: Pam Leece; Mohit Bhandari; Sheila Sprague; Marc F Swiontkowski; Emil H Schemitsch; Paul Tornetta; P J Devereaux; Gordon H Guyatt Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2004-09-24 Impact factor: 5.428