Literature DB >> 34545466

An International Needs Assessment Survey of Guideline Developers Demonstrates Variability in Resources and Challenges to Collaboration between Organizations.

Shahnaz Sultan1, Madelin R Siedler2, Rebecca L Morgan3, Toju Ogunremi4, Philipp Dahm5, Lisa A Fatheree6, Thomas S D Getchius7, Pamela K Ginex8, Priya Jakhmola9, Emma McFarlane10, M Hassan Murad11, Robyn L Temple Smolkin12, Yasser S Amer13,14,15, Murad Alam16, Bianca Y Kang16, Yngve Falck-Ytter17, Reem A Mustafa3,18.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The development of rigorous, high-quality clinical guidelines increases the need for resources and skilled personnel within guideline-producing organizations. While collaboration between organizations provides a unique opportunity to pool resources and save time and effort, the collaboration presents its own unique challenges.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the perceived needs and current challenges of guideline producers worldwide related to guideline development and collaboration efforts.
DESIGN: Survey questions were developed by the Guidelines International Network and the US GRADE Network, pilot-tested among attendees of a guideline development workshop, and disseminated electronically using convenience and snowball sampling methods. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 171 respondents representing 30 countries and more than 112 unique organizations were included in this analysis. MAIN MEASURES: The survey included free-response, multiple-choice, and seven-point Likert-scale questions. Questions assessed respondents' perceived value of guidelines, resource availability and needs, guideline development processes, and collaboration efforts of their organization. KEY
RESULTS: Time required to develop high-quality systematic reviews and guidelines was the most relevant need (median=7; IQR=5.5-7). In-house resources to conduct literature searches (median=4; IQR=3-6) and the resources to develop rigorous guidelines rapidly (median=4; IQR=2-5) were perceived as the least available resources. Difficulties reconciling differences in guideline methodology (median=6; IQR=4-7) and the time required to establish collaborative agreements (median=6; IQR=5-6) were the most relevant barriers to collaboration between organizations. Results also indicated a general need for improvement in conflict of interest (COI) disclosure policies.
CONCLUSION: The survey identified organizational challenges in supporting rigorous guideline development, including the time, resources, and personnel required. Connecting guideline developers to existing databases of high-quality systematic reviews and the use of freely available online platforms may facilitate guideline development. Guideline-producing organizations may also consider allocating resources to hiring or training personnel with expertise in systematic review methodologies or utilizing resources more effectively by establishing collaborations with other organizations.
© 2021. This is a U.S. government work and not under copyright protection in the U.S.; foreign copyright protection may apply.

Entities:  

Keywords:  GRADE; collaboration; guideline international network; guidelines; needs assessment

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34545466      PMCID: PMC9411275          DOI: 10.1007/s11606-021-07112-w

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gen Intern Med        ISSN: 0884-8734            Impact factor:   6.473


  20 in total

1.  AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting, and evaluation in health care.

Authors:  Melissa C Brouwers; Michelle E Kho; George P Browman; Jako S Burgers; Francoise Cluzeau; Gene Feder; Béatrice Fervers; Ian D Graham; Jeremy Grimshaw; Steven E Hanna; Peter Littlejohns; Julie Makarski; Louise Zitzelsberger
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2010-08-20       Impact factor: 4.018

2.  GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.

Authors:  Gordon H Guyatt; Andrew D Oxman; Gunn E Vist; Regina Kunz; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Holger J Schünemann
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2008-04-26

3.  How to use a subgroup analysis: users' guide to the medical literature.

Authors:  Xin Sun; John P A Ioannidis; Thomas Agoritsas; Ana C Alba; Gordon Guyatt
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2014 Jan 22-29       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Guideline developers in the United States were inconsistent in applying criteria for appropriate Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation use.

Authors:  Colby Dixon; Paul E Dixon; Shahnaz Sultan; Reem Mustafa; Rebecca L Morgan; Mohammed Hassan Murad; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Philipp Dahm
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2020-03-04       Impact factor: 6.437

5.  The UpPriority tool was developed to guide the prioritization of clinical guideline questions for updating.

Authors:  Andrea Juliana Sanabria; Hector Pardo-Hernandez; Mónica Ballesteros; Carlos Canelo-Aybar; Emma McFarlane; Ena Niño de Guzman; Katrina Penman; Margarita Posso; Marta Roqué I Figuls; Anna Selva; Robin W M Vernooij; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Laura Martínez García
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2020-06-19       Impact factor: 6.437

6.  The quality of physical activity guidelines, but not the specificity of their recommendations, has improved over time: a systematic review and critical appraisal.

Authors:  Madelin R Siedler; Priscila Lamadrid; Megan N Humphries; Reem A Mustafa; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Philipp Dahm; Shahnaz Sultan; M Hassan Murad; Rebecca L Morgan
Journal:  Appl Physiol Nutr Metab       Date:  2020-09-29       Impact factor: 3.016

Review 7.  Barriers and Strategies in Guideline Implementation-A Scoping Review.

Authors:  Florian Fischer; Kerstin Lange; Kristina Klose; Wolfgang Greiner; Alexander Kraemer
Journal:  Healthcare (Basel)       Date:  2016-06-29

8.  AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both.

Authors:  Beverley J Shea; Barnaby C Reeves; George Wells; Micere Thuku; Candyce Hamel; Julian Moran; David Moher; Peter Tugwell; Vivian Welch; Elizabeth Kristjansson; David A Henry
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2017-09-21

9.  Living systematic reviews: 2. Combining human and machine effort.

Authors:  James Thomas; Anna Noel-Storr; Iain Marshall; Byron Wallace; Steven McDonald; Chris Mavergames; Paul Glasziou; Ian Shemilt; Anneliese Synnot; Tari Turner; Julian Elliott
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2017-09-11       Impact factor: 6.437

10.  Development of rapid guidelines: 3. GIN-McMaster Guideline Development Checklist extension for rapid recommendations.

Authors:  Rebecca L Morgan; Ivan Florez; Maicon Falavigna; Sergio Kowalski; Elie A Akl; Kristina A Thayer; Andrew Rooney; Holger J Schünemann
Journal:  Health Res Policy Syst       Date:  2018-07-13
View more
  1 in total

1.  Guidelines developed under pressure. The case of the COVID-19 low-quality "rapid" guidelines and potential solutions.

Authors:  Ivan D Florez; Yasser Sami Amer; Michael McCaul; John N Lavis; Melissa Brouwers
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2021-11-13       Impact factor: 6.437

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.