BACKGROUND: Developing and updating high-quality guidelines requires substantial time and resources. To reduce duplication of effort and enhance efficiency, we developed a process for guideline adaptation and assessed initial perceptions of its feasibility and usefulness. METHODS: Based on preliminary developments and empirical studies, a series of meetings with guideline experts were organised to define a process for guideline adaptation (ADAPTE) and to develop a manual and a toolkit made available on a website (http://www.adapte.org). Potential users, guideline developers and implementers, were invited to register and to complete a questionnaire evaluating their perception about the proposed process. RESULTS: The ADAPTE process consists of three phases (set-up, adaptation, finalisation), 9 modules and 24 steps. The adaptation phase involves identifying specific clinical questions, searching for, retrieving and assessing available guidelines, and preparing the draft adapted guideline. Among 330 registered individuals (46 countries), 144 completed the questionnaire. A majority found the ADAPTE process clear (78%), comprehensive (69%) and feasible (60%), and the manual useful (79%). However, 21% found the ADAPTE process complex. 44% feared that they will not find appropriate and high-quality source guidelines. DISCUSSION: A comprehensive framework for guideline adaptation has been developed to meet the challenges of timely guideline development and implementation. The ADAPTE process generated important interest among guideline developers and implementers. The majority perceived the ADAPTE process to be feasible, useful and leading to improved methodological rigour and guideline quality. However, some de novo development might be needed if no high quality guideline exists for a given topic.
BACKGROUND: Developing and updating high-quality guidelines requires substantial time and resources. To reduce duplication of effort and enhance efficiency, we developed a process for guideline adaptation and assessed initial perceptions of its feasibility and usefulness. METHODS: Based on preliminary developments and empirical studies, a series of meetings with guideline experts were organised to define a process for guideline adaptation (ADAPTE) and to develop a manual and a toolkit made available on a website (http://www.adapte.org). Potential users, guideline developers and implementers, were invited to register and to complete a questionnaire evaluating their perception about the proposed process. RESULTS: The ADAPTE process consists of three phases (set-up, adaptation, finalisation), 9 modules and 24 steps. The adaptation phase involves identifying specific clinical questions, searching for, retrieving and assessing available guidelines, and preparing the draft adapted guideline. Among 330 registered individuals (46 countries), 144 completed the questionnaire. A majority found the ADAPTE process clear (78%), comprehensive (69%) and feasible (60%), and the manual useful (79%). However, 21% found the ADAPTE process complex. 44% feared that they will not find appropriate and high-quality source guidelines. DISCUSSION: A comprehensive framework for guideline adaptation has been developed to meet the challenges of timely guideline development and implementation. The ADAPTE process generated important interest among guideline developers and implementers. The majority perceived the ADAPTE process to be feasible, useful and leading to improved methodological rigour and guideline quality. However, some de novo development might be needed if no high quality guideline exists for a given topic.
Authors: Shirley H Bush; Eduardo Bruera; Peter G Lawlor; Salmaan Kanji; Daniel H J Davis; Meera Agar; David Kenneth Wright; Michael Hartwick; David C Currow; Bruno Gagnon; Jessica Simon; José L Pereira Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2014-04-21 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Mary E Cooley; David F Lobach; Ellis Johns; Barbara Halpenny; Toni-Ann Saunders; Guilherme Del Fiol; Michael S Rabin; Pamela Calarese; Isidore L Berenbaum; Ken Zaner; Kathleen Finn; Donna L Berry; Janet L Abrahm Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2013-05-13 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Laura Sola; Nathan W Levin; David W Johnson; Roberto Pecoits-Filho; Harith M Aljubori; Yuqing Chen; Stefaan Claus; Allan Collins; Brett Cullis; John Feehally; Paul N Harden; Mohamed H Hassan; Fuad Ibhais; Kamyar Kalantar-Zadeh; Adeera Levin; Abdulkarim Saleh; Daneil Schneditz; Irma Tchokhonelidze; Rumeyza Turan Kazancioglu; Ahmed Twahir; Robert Walker; Anthony J O Were; Xueqing Yu; Fredric O Finkelstein Journal: Kidney Int Suppl (2011) Date: 2020-02-19
Authors: Austin S Kilaru; Sarah M Gadsden; Jeanmarie Perrone; Breah Paciotti; Frances K Barg; Zachary F Meisel Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2014-04-16 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Margaret B Harrison; Ian D Graham; Joan van den Hoek; Elizabeth J Dogherty; Meg E Carley; Valerie Angus Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2013-05-08 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Melissa C Brouwers; Carol De Vito; Lavannya Bahirathan; Angela Carol; June C Carroll; Michelle Cotterchio; Maureen Dobbins; Barbara Lent; Cheryl Levitt; Nancy Lewis; S Elizabeth McGregor; Lawrence Paszat; Carol Rand; Nadine Wathen Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2011-09-29 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Lubna A Al-Ansary; Andrea C Tricco; Yaser Adi; Ghada Bawazeer; Laure Perrier; Mohammed Al-Ghonaim; Nada AlYousefi; Mariam Tashkandi; Sharon E Straus Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-01-17 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Stijn Van de Velde; Robert Vander Stichele; Benjamin Fauquert; Siegfried Geens; Annemie Heselmans; Dirk Ramaekers; Ilkka Kunnamo; Bert Aertgeerts Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2013-07-10