PROTOCOL: Barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in health guideline development: A qualitative evidence synthesis

Addressing coloniality of power to improve HIV care in South Africa and other LMIC

We describe the appropriateness and potential for effectiveness of three strategic approaches for improving HIV care in South Africa: community-based primary healthcare, local/community-based stakeholder engagement, and community-engaged research. At their core, these approaches are related to overcoming health inequity and inequality resulting from coloniality of power's heterogenous structural processes impacting health care in many low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). We turn to South Africa, a middle-income country, as an example. There the HIV epidemic began in the 1980s and its ending is as elusive as achieving universal healthcare. Despite impressive achievements such as the antiretroviral treatment program (the largest in the world) and the country's outstanding cadre of HIV experts, healthcare workers and leaders, disadvantaged South Africans continue to experience disproportionate rates of HIV transmission. Innovation in global public health must prioritize overcoming the coloniality of power in LMIC, effected through the imposition of development and healthcare models conceived in high-income countries (HIC) and insufficient investment to address social determinants of health. We advocate for a paradigm shift in global health structures and financing to effectively respond to the HIV pandemic in LMIC. We propose ethically responsive, local/community-based stakeholder engagement as a key conceptual approach and strategy to improve HIV care in South Africa and elsewhere. We join in solidarity with local/community-based stakeholders' longstanding efforts and call upon others to change the current status quo characterized by global public health power concentrated in HIC.

Methodological Rigor and Transparency in Clinical Practice Guidelines for Nutrition Care in Critically Ill Adults: A Systematic Review Using the AGREE II and AGREE-REX Tools

Background: To evaluate the methodological quality of (1) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) that inform nutrition care in critically ill adults using the AGREE II tool and (2) CPG recommendations for determining energy expenditure using the AGREE-REX tool. Methods: CPGs by a professional society or academic group, intended to guide nutrition care in critically ill adults, that used a systematic literature search and rated the evidence were included. Four databases and grey literature were searched from January 2011 to 19 January 2022. Five investigators assessed the methodological quality of CPGs and recommendations specific to energy expenditure determination. Scaled domain scores were calculated for AGREE II and a scaled total score for AGREE-REX. Data are presented as medians (interquartile range). Results: Eleven CPGs were included. Highest scoring domains for AGREE II were clarity of presentation (82% [76–87%]) and scope and purpose (78% [66–83%]). Lowest scoring domains were applicability (37% [32–42%]) and stakeholder involvement (46% [33–51%]). Eight (73%) CPGs provided recommendations relating to energy expenditure determination; scores were low overall (37% [36–40%]) and across individual domains. Conclusions: Nutrition CPGs for critically ill patients are developed using systematic methods but lack engagement with key stakeholders and guidance to support application. The quality of energy expenditure determination recommendations is low.

CORRIGENDUM

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1002/cl2.1237.].