Rigorous development does not ensure that guidelines are acceptable to a panel of knowledgeable providers

Moving toward the Development and Effective Implementation of High-Quality Guidelines in Pediatric Surgery: A Review of the Literature

Applying evidence-based guidelines can enhance the quality of patient care. While robust guideline development methodology ensures credibility and validity, methodological variations can impact guideline quality. Besides methodological rigor, effective implementation is crucial for achieving improved health outcomes. This review provides an overview of recent literature pertaining to the development and implementation of guidelines in pediatric surgery. Literature was reviewed to provide an overview of sound guideline development methodologies and approaches to promote effective guideline implementation. Challenges specific to pediatric surgery were highlighted. A search was performed to identify published guidelines relevant to pediatric surgery from 2018 to June 2023, and their quality was collectively appraised using the AGREE II instrument. High-quality guideline development can be promoted by using methodologically sound tools such as the Guidelines 2.0 checklist, the GRADE system, and the AGREE II instrument. While implementation can be promoted during guideline development and post-publication, its effectiveness may be influenced by various factors. Challenges pertinent to pediatric surgery, such as limited evidence and difficulties with outcome selection and heterogeneity, may impact guideline quality and effective implementation. Fifteen guidelines were identified and collectively appraised as suboptimal, with a mean overall AGREE II score of 58%, with applicability being the lowest scoring domain. There are identified challenges and barriers to the development and effective implementation of high-quality guidelines in pediatric surgery. It is valuable to prioritize the identification of adapted, innovative methodological strategies and the use of implementation science to understand and achieve effective guideline implementation.

Assessment of the methodological, recommendation and reporting quality of global guidelines for neck pain and synthesis of evidence and recommendations: a systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Neck pain is a global health problem that can cause severe disability and a huge medical burden. Clinical practice guideline (CPG) is an important basis for clinical diagnosis and treatment. A high-quality CPG plays a significant role in clinical practice. However, the quality of the CPGs for neck pain lacks comprehensive assessment. This protocol aims to evaluate the methodological, recommendation, reporting quality of global CPGs for neck pain and identify key recommendations and gaps that limit evidence-based practice.

METHOD

CPGs from January 2013 to November 2023 will be identified through a systematic search on 13 scientific databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, etc) and 7 online guideline repositories. Six reviewers will independently evaluate the quality of CPGs for neck pain by using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation, the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation-Recommendations Excellence and the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare tools. Intraclass correlation coefficient will be used to test the consistency of the assessment. We will identify the distribution of evidence and recommendations in each evidence-based CPGs for neck pain and regrade the level of evidence and strength of recommendations by adopting the commonly used Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations system. The key recommendations based on high-quality evidence will be summarised. In addition, we will categorise CPGs by different characteristics and conduct a subgroup analysis of the results of assessment.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

No subjects will be involved in this systematic review, so there is no need for ethical approval. The finding of this review will be summarised as a paper for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42023417717.

Critical appraisal of the Colombian clinical practice guide for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of suicidal ideation and/or behaviour (adoption)

INTRODUCTION

Suicide is a complex, global public health problem. The Colombian clinical practice guideline provides relevant input for its prevention, diagnosis and treatment. The objective was to evaluate the methodological quality, credibility and applicability of the Colombian clinical practice guideline for suicidal behaviour.

METHODS

An academic group of 12 evaluators was established to assess the guide and its recommendations in a standardised way, using the AGREE-II and AGREE-REX instruments. The evaluations were given in the range of 0.0-1.0 with 0.7 as a cut-off point for appropriate quality.

RESULTS

The global assessment of the AGREE-II was greater than 0.7 in the dimensions: "scope and objective" (0.86), "clarity of presentation" (0.89), "applicability" (0.73) and "editorial independence" (0.89). The lowest scores were for "participation of those involved" (0.67) and "rigour in preparation" (0.69). With the AGREE-REX, the results in all dimensions were below 0.70, which indicates lower quality and suitability for use.

CONCLUSIONS

The adoption process of the Colombian guideline for suicidal behaviour was a rigorous methodological process, while the practice recommendations were valued as of low applicability due to low support in local evidence. It is necessary to strengthen the generation and synthesis of evidence at the national level to give greater support and applicability to the practice recommendations.

A systematic review and evaluation of post-stroke depression clinical practice guidelines

OBJECTIVE

Post-stroke depression is a depressive mood disorder that follows a cerebrovascular accident and is a burden on stroke patients. Its management is included in clinical practice guidelines focused on stroke, and the recommended treatment is selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in conjunction with psychotherapy. Clinical practice guidelines are recommendations used to standardize best medical practice, but there is no current evaluation of guidelines containing post stroke depression recommendations. Thus, the objective is to appraise the selected guidelines manner of development and quality.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature review across three databases and a manual google search was performed to collect guidelines that included recommendations on the management of post-stroke depression. 1236 guidelines were screened, and 27 were considered for inclusion. Considered guidelines were manually reviewed by the authors, and ultimately, 7 met inclusion criteria. The appraisal of guidelines for research and evaluation was used to evaluate these guidelines' recommendations around post-stroke depression.

RESULTS

Three guidelines met the threshold considered "High", with all of them having five or more quality domains eclipse the cutoff score of 70%. Across all guidelines, the highest scoring domains were "Scope and Purpose", "Clarity of Presentation", and "Editorial Independence" with scores of 76.98%, 73.81%, and 91.36% respectively. The lowest scoring domains were "Applicability", "Rigor of Development", and "Stakeholder Involvement" with respective scores of 58.73%, 54.02%, and 43.90%.

CONCLUSIONS

The domains "Applicability", "Rigor of Development," and "Stakeholder Involvement" were the lowest scoring domains. These specific domains represent areas in which future guidelines could be more developed.

Editor's Choice - Quality Assessment of European Society for Vascular Surgery Clinical Practice Guidelines

OBJECTIVE

An increasing number of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have emerged over recent years. To have clinical utility, they need to be rigorously developed and scientifically robust. Instruments have been developed to assess the quality of clinical guideline development and reporting. The aim of this study was to evaluate CPGs from the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument.

METHODS

CPGs published by the ESVS during the period January 2011 to January 2023 were included. Two independent reviewers assessed the guidelines after receiving training in the use and application of the AGREE II instrument. Inter-reviewer reliability was assessed with the intraclass correlation coefficient. Maximum scaled scores were 100. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS Statistics v.26.

RESULTS

Sixteen guidelines were included in the study. Good inter-reviewer score reliability was found on statistical analysis (> 0.9). The mean ± standard deviation domain scores were 68.1 ± 20.3% for scope and purpose, 57.1 ± 21.1% for stakeholder involvement, 67.8 ± 19.5% for rigour of development, 78.1 ± 20.6% for clarity of presentation, 50.3 ± 15.4% for applicability, 77.6 ± 17.6% for editorial independence, and 69.8 ± 20.1% for overall quality. Stakeholder involvement and applicability have improved in quality over time but are still the lowest scoring domains.

CONCLUSION

Most ESVS clinical guidelines are of high quality and reporting. There is scope for improvement, specifically by addressing the domains of stakeholder involvement and clinical applicability.

European Respiratory Society guideline on various aspects of quality in lung cancer care

This European Respiratory Society guideline is dedicated to the provision of good quality recommendations in lung cancer care. All the clinical recommendations contained were based on a comprehensive systematic review and evidence syntheses based on eight PICO (Patients, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes) questions. The evidence was appraised in compliance with the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. Evidence profiles and the GRADE Evidence to Decision frameworks were used to summarise results and to make the decision-making process transparent. A multidisciplinary Task Force panel of lung cancer experts formulated and consented the clinical recommendations following thorough discussions of the systematic review results. In particular, we have made recommendations relating to the following quality improvement measures deemed applicable to routine lung cancer care: 1) avoidance of delay in the diagnostic and therapeutic period, 2) integration of multidisciplinary teams and multidisciplinary consultations, 3) implementation of and adherence to lung cancer guidelines, 4) benefit of higher institutional/individual volume and advanced specialisation in lung cancer surgery and other procedures, 5) need for pathological confirmation of lesions in patients with pulmonary lesions and suspected lung cancer, and histological subtyping and molecular characterisation for actionable targets or response to treatment of confirmed lung cancers, 6) added value of early integration of palliative care teams or specialists, 7) advantage of integrating specific quality improvement measures, and 8) benefit of using patient decision tools. These recommendations should be reconsidered and updated, as appropriate, as new evidence becomes available.

Quality and credibility of clinical practice guidelines recommendations for the management of neonatal hypoglycemia. A protocol for a systematic review and recommendations' synthesis

INTRODUCTION

Hypoglycemia is one of the most frequent metabolic conditions in neonates. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) influence clinical practice as high-quality CPGs facilitate the use of evidence in practice. This proposed study aims to systematically identify and appraise CPGs and CPG recommendations (CPGRs) for treating neonatal hypoglycemia (NH).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will conduct searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, LILACS (Latin American & Caribbean Health Sciences Literature), and Epistemonikos. Authors will search CPGs-specific databases and grey literature. Two reviewers will independently perform the titles and abstract screening, full-text review, and data extraction. Two appraisers will assess the quality of the CPGs and their recommendations using AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation) and AGREE-REX (Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation-Recommendations Excellence) instruments. Scores of ≥ 60% in the rigour of development domain will be considered for defining high-quality with AGREE II tool. CPGRs with scores >60% in the three domains will be used to determine high quality with the AGREE REX tool. We will perform a synthesis of the CPGRs to identify the consistency among the CPGRs and the methodological quality of primary studies that support them.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The results will help us to identify the methodological and quality gaps in the existing CPGs for the treatment of NH. Our findings will be submitted to peer-review journals and presented at academic conferences. Based on the study design, approval from the institutional ethics board is not required for this project.

TRIAL REGISTRATIONS

Systematic Review Registration Number (PROSPERO): CRD 42021239921.

What information can we gain from the quality appraisal of guidelines with physical activity recommendations for cancer patients?A systematic review using the AGREE II and AGREE-REX tools

PURPOSE

There has been growing amount of evidence supporting the benefits of physical activity (PA) on oncological patients' cancer-related health outcomes. Although guidelines on cancer rehabilitation are widely available, the varying quality and practical applicability limited the clinical application of PA recommendations. To assist the future development of guidelines, in this systematic review, we evaluated the quality and applicability of current cancer rehabilitation guidelines with PA recommendations and synthesized PA recommendations for the oncological population.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, CINAHL, PEDro, EMBASE, and guideline repositories to identify guidelines with PA recommendations for cancer patients from 1 May 2016 to 1 June 2022. The quality of included guidelines was appraised using the tools "Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II" (AGREE II) and AGREE-REX (Recommendation Excellence). PA recommendations were synthesized from the guidelines.

RESULTS

Sixteen guidelines were extracted. The AGREE II domain "clarity of presentation" obtained the highest score, while "applicability" received the lowest, ranging from 33.33% to 98.58%. The AGREE-REX domains "values and preferences" and "implementability" generally scored lower and ranged from 45.83% to 74.17% and 55% to 88.33%, respectively. Eight high-quality guidelines were identified, and the included PA recommendations were extracted.

CONCLUSION

There were some disparities in the quality of the included guidelines. Methodological weaknesses were commonly observed in domains "applicability," "values and preferences," and "implementability"; particular attention should be given to these domains when developing future guidelines. Furthermore, this analysis indicated that more rigorous, high-quality studies are needed to generate evidence for supporting PA recommendations and provide guidance on research gaps in the field of cancer rehabilitation.

Lifestyle and complementary therapies in multiple sclerosis guidelines: Systematic review

Management of multiple sclerosis (MS) may comprise clinical interventions and self-management strategies, including complementary therapies and modifiable lifestyle factors such as exercise and smoking cessation. Lifestyle modifications and complementary therapies with proven safety and efficacy are essential as part of best-practice MS management, especially when faced with limited access to healthcare services. However, it is unclear to what extent MS clinical practice guidelines and consensus statements address these strategies. A systematic review was conducted, wherein MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, guideline databases and developer sites were searched for guidelines and consensus statements that addressed lifestyle modifications and complementary therapies of interest. Two researchers independently screened articles, extracted data and assessed guideline quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation version II. Thirty-one guidelines and consensus statements were included. Quality was high for 'clarity of presentation' (77%) and 'scope and purpose' (73%), moderate for 'stakeholder development' (56%), 'rigour of development' (48%) and 'editorial independence' (47%), and low for 'applicability' (29%). Two guidelines, related to physical activity and exercise, mindfulness, smoking cessation, and vitamin D and polyunsaturated fatty acid supplementation, scored high in all domains. These guidelines were two of only four guidelines intended for use by people with MS. High-quality guidelines and consensus statements to guide lifestyle modifications and complementary therapies in MS management are limited. Our findings indicate the need for more guidelines intended for use by people with MS, and a further focus on implementation resources.

Systematic review of diabetic eye disease practice guidelines: more applicability, transparency and development rigor are needed

OBJECTIVES

To assess the quality of diabetic eye disease clinical practice guidelines.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A systematic search of diabetic eye disease guidelines was conducted on six online databases and guideline repositories. Four reviewers independently rated quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research, and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument. Aggregate scores (%) for six domains and overall quality assessment were calculated. A "good quality" guideline was one with ≥60% score for "rigor of development" and in at least two other domains.

RESULTS

Eighteen guidelines met the inclusion criteria, of which 13 were evidence-based guidelines (involved systematic search and grading of evidence). The median scores (interquartile range (IQR)) for "scope and purpose," "stakeholder involvement," "rigor of development," "clarity of presentation," "applicability" and "editorial independence" were 73.6% (54.2%-80.6%), 48.6% (29.2%-71.5%), 60.2% (30.9%-78.1%), 86.6% (76.7%-94.4%), 28.6% (18.0%-37.8%) and 60.2% (30.9%-78.1%), respectively. The median overall score (out of 7) of all guidelines was 5.1 (IQR: 3.7-5.8). Evidence-based guidelines scored significantly higher compared to expert-consensus guidelines. Half (n = 9) of the guidelines (all evidence-based) were of "good quality."

CONCLUSION

A wide variation in methodological quality exists among diabetic eyecare guidelines, with nine demonstrating "good quality." Future iterations of guidelines could improve by appropriately engaging stakeholders, following a rigorous development process, including support for application in clinical practice and ensuring editorial transparency.

Radiophobia Overreaction: College of Chiropractors of British Columbia Revoke Full X-Ray Rights Based on Flawed Study and Radiation Fear-Mongering

Fears over radiation have created irrational pressures to dissuade radiography use within chiropractic. Recently, the regulatory body for chiropractors practicing in British Columbia, Canada, the College of Chiropractors of British Columbia (CCBC), contracted Pierre Côté to review the clinical use of X-rays within the chiropractic profession. A "rapid review" was performed and published quickly and included only 9 papers, the most recent dating from 2005; they concluded, "Given the inherent risks of radiation, we recommend that chiropractors do not use radiographs for the routine and repeat evaluation of the structure and function of the spine." The CCBC then launched an immediate review of the use of X-rays by chiropractors in their jurisdiction. Member and public opinion were gathered but not presented to their members. On February 4, 2021, the College announced amendments to their Professional Conduct Handbook that revoked X-ray rights for routine/repeat assessment and management of patients with spine disorders. Here, we highlight current and historical evidence that substantiates that X-rays are not a public health threat. We also point out critical and insurmountable flaws in the single paper used to support irrational and unscientific policy that discriminates against chiropractors who practice certain forms of evidence-based X-ray-guided methods.

Quality of pediatric clinical practice guidelines

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of a comprehensive evaluation for pediatric clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) published in recent years. Here, we assessed the quality of pediatric CPGs, considering factors that might affect their quality. The aim of the study is to promote a more coherent development and application of CPGs.

METHODS

Pediatric CPGs published in PubMed, MedLive, Guidelines International Network, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and World Health Organization between 2017 and 2019 were searched and collected. Paired researchers conducted screening, data extraction, and quality assessment using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II). Linear regression analysis determined the factors affecting CPGs' quality.

RESULTS

The study included a total of 216 CPGs, which achieved a mean score of 4.26 out of 7 points (60.86%) in the AGREE II assessment. Only 6.48% of the CPGs reached the "recommend" level. The remaining 69.91% should have been modified before recommendation, while the other 23.61% did not reach the recommended level at all. The overall quality of recent pediatric CPGs was higher than previously, and the proportion of CPGs with low-quality decreased over time. However, there were still too few CPGs that reached a high-quality level. The "applicability" and "rigor of development" domains had generally low scores. CPGs formulated by developing countries or regions, those that are not under an organizations or groups responsibility, and those that used non-evidence-based methods were found to be associated with poorer quality in different domains as independent or combinational factors.

CONCLUSIONS

The quality of pediatric CPGs still needs to be improved. Specifically, a quality control before applying new CPGs should be essential to ensure their quality and applicability.

Radiophobic Fear-Mongering, Misappropriation of Medical References and Dismissing Relevant Data Forms the False Stance for Advocating Against the Use of Routine and Repeat Radiography in Chiropractic and Manual Therapy

There is a faction within the chiropractic profession passionately advocating against the routine use of X-rays in the diagnosis, treatment and management of patients with spinal disorders (aka subluxation). These activists reiterate common false statements such as "there is no evidence" for biomechanical spine assessment by X-ray, "there are no guidelines" supporting routine imaging, and also promulgate the reiterating narrative that "X-rays are dangerous." These arguments come in the form of recycled allopathic "red flag only" medical guidelines for spine care, opinion pieces and consensus statements. Herein, we review these common arguments and present compelling data refuting such claims. It quickly becomes evident that these statements are false. They are based on cherry-picked medical references and, most importantly, expansive evidence against this narrative continues to be ignored. Factually, there is considerable evidential support for routine use of radiological imaging in chiropractic and manual therapies for 3 main purposes: 1. To assess spinopelvic biomechanical parameters; 2. To screen for relative and absolute contraindications; 3. To reassess a patient's progress from some forms of spine altering treatments. Finally, and most importantly, we summarize why the long-held notion of carcinogenicity from X-rays is not a valid argument.

Quality of 2019 American optometric association clinical practice guideline for diabetic eye care

PURPOSE

The 2019 American Optometric Association (AOA) clinical practice guideline intends to assist optometrists in providing evidence-based eye care for people with diabetes. This technical report evaluated the methodological and reporting quality of the guideline.

METHODS

Four independent reviewers appraised the 2014 and 2019 versions of the AOA's guideline using the AGREE II instrument. Average scaled scores across the six domains of the AGREE II and an overall independent score were calculated based on the formula provided.

RESULTS

The 2019 guideline scored high (range: 75-93%) in all domains except for the domain of applicability (34%). In the domain of rigour of development, significant improvements were noted in the 2019 guideline (median score: 7.0, interquartile range (IQR): 6.0-7.0) compared to the 2014 guideline (median: 5.0, IQR: 4.0-6.0) (p < 0.0001). The appraisal of the guideline also identified room for further improvements, especially in relation to implementing the guideline.

CONCLUSION

The overall and domain specific quality of the AOA 2019 guideline was high, however, improvement in its applicability domain is required. The findings of this study will aid uptake of the guideline and inform improvement efforts for other international optometric guidelines.

Assessment of the quality of recommendations from 161 clinical practice guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation-Recommendations Excellence (AGREE-REX) instrument shows there is room for improvement

Objective

To assess the quality of recommendations from 161 clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) using AGREE-REX-D (Appraisal of Guidelines REsearch and Evaluation-Recommendations Excellence Draft).

Design

Cross-sectional study

Setting

International CPG community.

Participants

Three hundred twenty-two international CPG developers, users, and researchers.

Intervention

Participants were assigned to appraise one of 161 CPGs selected for the study using the AGREE-REX-D tool

Main outcome measures

AGREE-REX-D scores of 161 CPGs (7-point scale, maximum 7).

Results

Recommendations from 161 CPGs were appraised by 322 participants using the AGREE-REX-D. CPGs were developed by 67 different organizations. The total overall average score of the CPG recommendations was 4.23 (standard deviation (SD) = 1.14). AGREE-REX-D items that scored the highest were (mean; SD): evidence (5.51; 1.14), clinical relevance (5.95; SD 0.8), and patients/population relevance (4.87; SD 1.33), while the lowest scores were observed for the policy values (3.44; SD 1.53), local applicability (3,56; SD 1.47), and resources, tools, and capacity (3.49; SD 1.44) items. CPGs developed by government-supported organizations and developed in the UK and Canada had significantly higher recommendation quality scores with the AGREE-REX-D tool (p < 0.05) than their comparators.

Conclusions

We found that there is significant room for improvement of some CPGs such as the considerations of patient/population values, policy values, local applicability and resources, tools, and capacity. These findings may be considered a baseline upon which to measure future improvements in the quality of CPGs.

Development and Validation of a Tool to Assess the Quality of Clinical Practice Guideline Recommendations

Importance

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) may lack rigor and suitability to the setting in which they are to be applied. Methods to yield clinical practice guideline recommendations that are credible and implementable remain to be determined.

Objective

To describe the development of AGREE-REX (Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation-Recommendations Excellence), a tool designed to evaluate the quality of clinical practice guideline recommendations.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A cross-sectional study of 322 international stakeholders representing CPG developers, users, and researchers was conducted between December 2015 and March 2019. Advertisements to participate were distributed through professional organizations as well as through the AGREE Enterprise social media accounts and their registered users.

Exposures

Between 2015 and 2017, participants appraised 1 of 161 CPGs using the Draft AGREE-REX tool and completed the AGREE-REX Usability Survey.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Usability and measurement properties of the tool were assessed with 7-point scales (1 indicating strong disagreement and 7 indicating strong agreement). Internal consistency of items was assessed with the Cronbach α, and the Spearman-Brown reliability adjustment was used to calculate reliability for 2 to 5 raters.

Results

A total of 322 participants (202 female participants [62.7%]; 83 aged 40-49 years [25.8%]) rated the survey items (on a 7-point scale). All 11 items were rated as easy to understand (with a mean [SD] ranging from 5.2 [1.38] for the alignment of values item to 6.3 [0.87] for the evidence item) and easy to apply (with a mean [SD] ranging from 4.8 [1.49] for the alignment of values item to 6.1 [1.07] for the evidence item). Participants provided favorable feedback on the tool's instructions, which were considered clear (mean [SD], 5.8 [1.06]), helpful (mean [SD], 5.9 [1.00]), and complete (mean [SD], 5.8 [1.11]). Participants considered the tool easy to use (mean [SD], 5.4 [1.32]) and thought that it added value to the guideline enterprise (mean [SD], 5.9 [1.13]). Internal consistency of the items was high (Cronbach α = 0.94). Positive correlations were found between the overall AGREE-REX score and the implementability score (r = 0.81) and the clinical credibility score (r = 0.76).

Conclusions and Relevance

This cross-sectional study found that the AGREE-REX tool can be useful in evaluating CPG recommendations, differentiating among them, and identifying those that are clinically credible and implementable for practicing health professionals and decision makers who use recommendations to inform clinical policy.

The structure of the quality of clinical practice guidelines with the items and overall assessment in AGREE II: a regression analysis

Background

The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II has been widely used to evaluate the quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). While the relationship between the overall assessment of CPGs and scores of six domains were reported in previous studies, the relationship between items constituting these domains and the overall assessment has not been analyzed. This study aims to investigate the relationship between the score of each item and the overall assessment and identify items that could influence the overall assessment.

Methods

All Japanese CPGs developed using the evidence-based medicine method and published from 2011 to 2015 were used. They were independently evaluated by three appraisers using AGREE II. The evaluation results were analyzed using regression analysis to evaluate the influence of 6 domains and 23 items on the overall assessment.

Results

A total of 206 CPGs were obtained. All domains and all items except one were significantly correlated to the overall assessment. Regression analysis revealed that Domain 3 (Rigour of Development), Domain 4 (Clarity of Presentation), Domain 5 (Applicability), and Domain 6 (Editorial Independence) had influence on the overall assessment. Additionally, four items of AGREE II, clear selection of evidence (Item 8), specific/unambiguous recommendations (Item 15), advice/tools for implementing recommendations (Item 19), and conflicts of interest (Item 22), significantly influenced the overall assessment and explained 72.1% of the variance.

Conclusions

These four items may highlight the areas for improvement in developing CPGs.

Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep Disruption in Adult Patients in the ICU

OBJECTIVE

To update and expand the 2013 Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Pain, Agitation, and Delirium in Adult Patients in the ICU.

DESIGN

Thirty-two international experts, four methodologists, and four critical illness survivors met virtually at least monthly. All section groups gathered face-to-face at annual Society of Critical Care Medicine congresses; virtual connections included those unable to attend. A formal conflict of interest policy was developed a priori and enforced throughout the process. Teleconferences and electronic discussions among subgroups and whole panel were part of the guidelines' development. A general content review was completed face-to-face by all panel members in January 2017.

METHODS

Content experts, methodologists, and ICU survivors were represented in each of the five sections of the guidelines: Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption). Each section created Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome, and nonactionable, descriptive questions based on perceived clinical relevance. The guideline group then voted their ranking, and patients prioritized their importance. For each Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome question, sections searched the best available evidence, determined its quality, and formulated recommendations as "strong," "conditional," or "good" practice statements based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation principles. In addition, evidence gaps and clinical caveats were explicitly identified.

RESULTS

The Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) panel issued 37 recommendations (three strong and 34 conditional), two good practice statements, and 32 ungraded, nonactionable statements. Three questions from the patient-centered prioritized question list remained without recommendation.

CONCLUSIONS

We found substantial agreement among a large, interdisciplinary cohort of international experts regarding evidence supporting recommendations, and the remaining literature gaps in the assessment, prevention, and treatment of Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) in critically ill adults. Highlighting this evidence and the research needs will improve Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) management and provide the foundation for improved outcomes and science in this vulnerable population.

Practice variation and practice guidelines: Attitudes of generalist and specialist physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants

Objective

To understand clinicians' beliefs about practice variation and how variation might be reduced.

Methods

We surveyed board-certified physicians (N = 178), nurse practitioners (N = 60), and physician assistants (N = 12) at an academic medical center and two community clinics, representing family medicine, general internal medicine, and cardiology, from February—April 2016. The Internet-based questionnaire ascertained clinicians' beliefs regarding practice variation, clinical practice guidelines, and costs.

Results

Respondents agreed that practice variation should be reduced (mean [SD] 4.5 [1.1]; 1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree), but agreed less strongly (4.1 [1.0]) that it can realistically be reduced. They moderately agreed that variation is justified by situational differences (3.9 [1.2]). They strongly agreed (5.2 [0.8]) that clinicians should help reduce healthcare costs, but agreed less strongly (4.4 [1.1]) that reducing practice variation would reduce costs. Nearly all respondents (234/249 [94%]) currently depend on practice guidelines. Clinicians rated differences in clinician style and experience as most influencing practice variation, and inaccessibility of guidelines as least influential. Time to apply standards, and patient decision aids, were rated most likely to help standardize practice. Nurse practitioners and physicians assistants (vs physicians) and less experienced (vs senior) clinicians rated more favorably several factors that might help to standardize practice. Differences by specialty and academic vs community practice were small.

Conclusions

Clinicians believe that practice variation should be reduced, but are less certain that this can be achieved. Accessibility of guidelines is not a significant barrier to practice standardization, whereas more time to apply standards is viewed as potentially helpful.

Evaluation of the Work Loss Data Institute's Official Disability Guidelines

OBJECTIVE

The widely used Official Disability Guidelines (ODG), a utilization review guideline for occupational conditions, has not been independently evaluated recently.

METHODS

We applied the appraisal of guidelines for research and evaluation (AGREE II) and modified a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR) instruments to assess guideline development methods and the quality of supporting systematic reviews. Multidisciplinary experts rated the validity of clinical content for 47 topics.

RESULTS

The overall AGREE II score was 58% due to a combination of favorable attributes (breadth, clear recommendations, frequent updating, and application tools) and unfavorable attributes (scant input from workers and uncertainty about editorial independence). The modified AMSTAR rating was fair/good due to limited information on methods. Panelists rated clinical content as valid for 41 topics.

CONCLUSIONS

ODG appears to be acceptable to clinicians, but ODG requires greater rigor to keep pace with methodological advances in the field of guideline development.

Patients and gastroenterologists' perceptions of treatments for inflammatory bowel diseases: do their perspectives match?

BACKGROUND

Perceptions of appropriateness of treatments may differ between gastroenterologists (GIs) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients. The aim of this study was to explore and compare GIs' and patients' perceptions of risks and benefits of treatments and prioritization of expected outcomes.

METHODS

Four vignette cases were drawn from clinical situations and used in three independent focus groups with GIs (n = 7), ulcerative colitis (UC-p, n = 8) and Crohn's disease patients (CD-p, n = 6). Content analysis was performed based on the conversation transcripts.

RESULTS

UC-p agreed more often with GIs' treatment choices than CD-p. CD-p often considered 5-ASA as a placebo. UC-p saw topical 5-ASA as a temporary solution, neither comfortable nor practical when professionally active. Azathioprine was considered as the treatment for which the risks versus benefits were perceived as the highest. The main risk perceived by patients on anti-TNFs was a potential loss of response. Divergences were observed on 1) stop of treatment: UC-p did not easily concur with stopping a treatment, which differed from GIs' expectation of patients' perceptions; CD-p were more prone to consider stopping treatment than GIs, 2) perception of outcomes: physicians had a focus on long-term objective goals. Patients' expectations were of shorter term and mainly concerned stress management, nutritional advice, and information on the treatments effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, patients and GIs agreed on perceptions of IBD treatments. GIs seemed more concerned about objective and scientific measures of remission whereas patients focused on quality of life and social outcomes when it came to evaluating a therapy.

Acceptance of inflammatory bowel disease treatment recommendations based on appropriateness ratings: do practicing gastroenterologists agree with experts?

BACKGROUND

Appropriateness criteria for the treatment of Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) have been developed by expert panels. Little is known about the acceptance of such recommendations by care providers. The aim was to explore how treatment decisions of practicing gastroenterologists differ from those of experts, using a vignette case study and a focus group.

METHODS

Seventeen clinical vignettes were drawn from clinical indications evaluated by the expert panel. A vignette case questionnaire asking for treatment options in 9 or 10 clinical situations was submitted to 26 practicing gastroenterologists. For each vignette case, practitioners’ answers on treatments deemed appropriate were compared with panel decisions. Qualitative analysis was performed on focus group discussion to explore acceptance and divergence reasons.

RESULTS

Two hundred thirty-nine clinical vignettes were completed, 98 for CD and 141 for UC.Divergence between proposed treatments and panel recommendations was more frequent for CD (34%) than for UC (27%). Among UC clinical vignettes, the main divergences with the panel were linked to 5-aminosalicylate (5-ASA) failure assessment and to situations in which stopping treatment was the main decision. For CD, the propositions of care providers diverged from the panel in mild to moderate active disease, for which practitioners were more prone to an accelerated step-up than the panel’s recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

In about one-third of vignette cases, inflammatory bowel disease treatment propositions made by practicing gastroenterologists diverged from expert recommendations. Practicing gastroenterologists may experience difficulty in applying recommendations in daily practice.

Opioid prescribing: a systematic review and critical appraisal of guidelines for chronic pain

BACKGROUND

Deaths due to prescription opioid overdoses have increased dramatically. High-quality guidelines could help clinicians mitigate risks associated with opioid therapy.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the quality and content of guidelines on the use of opioids for chronic pain.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, National Guideline Clearinghouse, specialty society Web sites, and international guideline clearinghouses (searched in July 2013).

STUDY SELECTION

Guidelines published between January 2007 and July 2013 addressing the use of opioids for chronic pain in adults were selected. Guidelines on specific settings, populations, and conditions were excluded.

DATA EXTRACTION

Guidelines and associated systematic reviews were evaluated using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument and A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR), respectively, and recommendations for mitigating opioid-related risks were compared.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Thirteen guidelines met selection criteria. Overall AGREE II scores were 3.00 to 6.20 (on a scale of 1 to 7). The AMSTAR ratings were poor to fair for 10 guidelines. Two received high AGREE II and AMSTAR scores. Most guidelines recommend that clinicians avoid doses greater than 90 to 200 mg of morphine equivalents per day, have additional knowledge to prescribe methadone, recognize risks of fentanyl patches, titrate cautiously, and reduce doses by at least 25% to 50% when switching opioids. Guidelines also agree that opioid risk assessment tools, written treatment agreements, and urine drug testing can mitigate risks. Most recommendations are supported by observational data or expert consensus.

LIMITATION

Exclusion of non-English-language guidelines and reliance on published information.

CONCLUSION

Despite limited evidence and variable development methods, recent guidelines on chronic pain agree on several opioid risk mitigation strategies, including upper dosing thresholds; cautions with certain medications; attention to drug-drug and drug-disease interactions; and use of risk assessment tools, treatment agreements, and urine drug testing. Future research should directly examine the effectiveness of opioid risk mitigation strategies.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

California Department of Industrial Relations and California Commission on Health and Safety and Workers' Compensation.

Appraisal tools for clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Clinical 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.

METHODS

Among 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.

RESULTS

We 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.

CONCLUSIONS

Most 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.

Diagnosis of pheochromocytoma: a clinical practice guideline appraisal using AGREE II instrument

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess the quality of clinical practice guidelines providing diagnostic recommendations on pheochromocytoma (PHEO) using the new Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument and to promote the development of clinical guidelines.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and electronic databases for guidelines published between 2001 and 2010 regarding the diagnosis of PHEO. The methodological quality of guidelines for three fields for the diagnosis of PHEO was evaluated using the new AGREE II instrument by two independent appraisers. We also compared two different types of guidelines to determine the superior guideline.

RESULTS

Four special guidelines and six general guidelines related to the diagnosis of PHEO were included in the study. According to AGREE II, two guidelines performed well in recommending biochemical evaluations. One guideline was good for radiodiagnosis, but no guideline was good for recommending genetic testing. The best-performing domain of the AGREE II instrument was domain 1 (D1) (scope and purpose), while the worst performing domain was D5 (applicability) in both types of guidelines. The special guideline was significantly better than the general guideline in D4 (P < 0.01), while the general guideline performed better in D6. There were no differences in the other four domains.

CONCLUSIONS

The quality and rigour of guidelines for the diagnosis of PHEO vary. It is difficult to identify one guideline that performed well in all three fields for the diagnosis of PHEO based on the AGREE II instrument. Therefore, additional studies and greater efforts should be taken to provide high-quality guidelines that serve as a useful and reliable tool for clinical decision making in diagnosing PHEO according to the AGREE II instrument.

Analysis of a multilevel diagnosis decision support system and its implications: a case study

Medical diagnosis can be performed in an automatic way with the use of computer-based systems or algorithms. Such systems are usually called diagnostic decision support systems (DDSSs) or medical diagnosis systems (MDSs). An evaluation of the performance of a DDSS called ML-DDSS has been performed in this paper. The methodology is based on clinical case resolution performed by physicians which is then used to evaluate the behavior of ML-DDSS. This methodology allows the calculation of values for several well-known metrics such as precision, recall, accuracy, specificity, and Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC). Analysis of the behavior of ML-DDSS reveals interesting results about the behavior of the system and of the physicians who took part in the evaluation process. Global results show how the ML-DDSS system would have significant utility if used in medical practice. The MCC metric reveals an improvement of about 30% in comparison with the experts, and with respect to sensitivity the system returns better results than the experts.

Creating a multidisciplinary low back pain guideline: anatomy of a guideline adaptation process

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

A collaborative, multidisciplinary guideline adaptation process was developed to construct a single overarching, evidence-based clinical practice guideline (CPG) for all primary care practitioners responsible for the management of low back pain (LBP) to curb the use of ineffective treatments and improve patient outcomes.

METHODS

The adaptation strategy, which involved multiple committees and partnerships, leveraged existing knowledge transfer connections to recruit guideline development group (GDG) members and ensure that all stakeholders had a voice in the guideline development process. Videoconferencing was used to coordinate the large, geographically dispersed GDG. Information services and health technology assessment experts were used throughout the process to lighten the GDG's workload.

RESULTS

The GDG reviewed seven seed guidelines and drafted an Alberta-specific guideline during 10 half-day meetings over a 12-month period. The use of ad hoc subcommittees to resolve uncertainties or disagreements regarding evidence interpretation expedited the process. Challenges were encountered in dealing with subjectivity, guideline appraisal tools, evidence source limitations and inconsistencies, and the lack of sophisticated evidence analysis inherent in guideline adaptation. Strategies for overcoming these difficulties are discussed.

CONCLUSION

Guideline adaptation is useful when resources are limited and good-quality seed CPGs exist. The Ambassador Program successfully utilized existing stakeholder interest to create an overarching guideline that aligned guidance for LBP management across multiple primary care disciplines. Unforeseen challenges in guideline adaptation can be overcome with credible seed guidelines, a consistently applied and transparent methodology, and clear documentation of the subjective contextualization process. Multidisciplinary stakeholder input and an open, trusting relationship among all contributors will ensure that the end product is clinically meaningful.

Clarity and applicability of drug-drug interaction management guidelines: a systematic appraisal by general practitioners and community pharmacists in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND

Despite the availability and daily use of computerized drug-drug interaction surveillance systems, exposure to potentially relevant drug-drug interactions (DDIs) continues. DDI management guidelines are often inadequate and clear management options are lacking, which attributes to overriding of DDI signals. Although general criteria for the development and reporting of high-quality clinical practice guidelines have been identified, it appears these have not yet been applied to DDI management guidelines.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to assess the clarity and applicability of guidelines for the management of potentially harmful DDIs.

METHODS

We selected 13 DDIs that are potentially harmful for patients and frequently occur in community pharmacy practice in the Netherlands. The clarity and applicability of the management guidelines of these DDIs were appraised using the appropriate two domains - 'Clarity and presentation' and 'Applicability', of the validated Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) Instrument. The appraisal was performed by 12 community pharmacists and 12 general practitioners. The standardized domain scores and mean item scores for 'Clarity and presentation' and 'Applicability' were compared.

RESULTS

All DDI management guidelines were generally found to score well on 'Clarity and presentation', but poorly with respect to 'Applicability' (standardized domain scores 68.0 vs 26.1%). Within the domain 'Clarity and presentation', the item 'tools for application' received the lowest scores. Within the domain 'Applicability', cost implications, organizational barriers and key review criteria were all poorly documented. All guidelines presented non-directive advice using words such as 'consider' and 'regularly'.

CONCLUSIONS

Developers of DDI management guidelines should take the appropriate domains of the AGREE Instrument into consideration in their development processes. The applicability of DDI management guidelines should be pretested before publishing. To improve guideline quality, more attention should particularly be paid to the available tools for applications and cost implications.

How can we improve guideline use? A conceptual framework of implementability

BACKGROUND

Guidelines continue to be underutilized, and a variety of strategies to improve their use have been suboptimal. Modifying guideline features represents an alternative, but untested way to promote their use. The purpose of this study was to identify and define features that facilitate guideline use, and examine whether and how they are included in current guidelines.

METHODS

A guideline implementability framework was developed by reviewing the implementation science literature. We then examined whether guidelines included these, or additional implementability elements. Data were extracted from publicly available high quality guidelines reflecting primary and institutional care, reviewed independently by two individuals, who through discussion resolved conflicts, then by the research team.

RESULTS

The final implementability framework included 22 elements organized in the domains of adaptability, usability, validity, applicability, communicability, accommodation, implementation, and evaluation. Data were extracted from 20 guidelines on the management of diabetes, hypertension, leg ulcer, and heart failure. Most contained a large volume of graded, narrative evidence, and tables featuring complementary clinical information. Few contained additional features that could improve guideline use. These included alternate versions for different users and purposes, summaries of evidence and recommendations, information to facilitate interaction with and involvement of patients, details of resource implications, and instructions on how to locally promote and monitor guideline use. There were no consistent trends by guideline topic.

CONCLUSIONS

Numerous opportunities were identified by which guidelines could be modified to support various types of decision making by different users. New governance structures may be required to accommodate development of guidelines with these features. Further research is needed to validate the proposed framework of guideline implementability, develop methods for preparing this information, and evaluate how inclusion of this information influences guideline use.

Clinical and public health implications of emerging genetic technologies

The clinical utility of many emerging genetic technologies has yet to be established. For many new genetic tests, no practice guidelines are available to help clinicians decide when and how to use them in practice. The clinical and public health implications of new genetic technologies are easiest to evaluate when these tests are compared with other genetic tests, including those already well established in clinical practice. Genetic tests can be divided into different categories based on their intent as follows: (1) to establish a diagnosis (genetic diagnostic tests), (2) to classify disease processes to assist management (gene expression profiling), (3) to predict drug response or side effects (pharmacogenomic tests), and (4) to predict susceptibility to disease (genetic susceptibility testing). As new genetic tests emerge, their translation into practice will depend on their performance based on laboratory standards, but also on their ability to enhance prevention or assist clinicians in diagnosing and treating patients. This article reviews the clinical and public health implications of different types of genetic tests, the evaluation of genetic tests from a public health perspective, and the need for partnership to achieve the potential for benefit of new genetic technologies.

[General practitioners' guideline for palliative care. A survey of guideline acceptance in quality circles of primary medical care]

PURPOSE

The implementation of the general practitioners' (GPs) guideline for palliative care released in 2007 with consent of the developing group was accompanied by an anonymous and voluntary survey designed to assess acceptance and feasibility of the recommendations. 60 quality circles of the GP-based care program in Hesse which are run by the PMV research group were used for guideline implementation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The quality of the palliative care quality circle meeting itself was checked with a standardized questionnaire (feedback, n = 473 of 515 participating GPs). After several weeks, the follow-up questioning on acceptance of the corresponding guideline was performed (n = 391 of 440 attendees) using twelve items to evaluate the guideline recommendations. The closed questions were appraised employing a Likert scale and the open questions after classifying the free text in categories.

RESULTS

96% of the respondents considered palliative medicine to be important in daily routine. The majority agreed with form and content of this CME meeting (feedback, response rate 91%). The complexity, handling, and practical relevance of the guideline were evaluated positively (response rate 88%). 82% of GPs reported that they would recommend the guideline to colleagues. Specific, practical guideline recommendations on (non)pharmacological strategies in treating dyspnea, on reducing xerostomia and on comedication in the case of opioid treatment were confirmed by 80-94% of the participants, and 75-92% rated these recommendations as practical.

CONCLUSION

The relevance of palliative care in daily routine was shown by the responses evaluating the quality circle session. The grade of acceptance of the guideline is comparable to the other GPs' guidelines with focus on pharmacotherapy. 10-13% of the respondents were not able to judge the relevance nor the practicability of selected recommendations. Future implementation should therefore consider attitude and experience with palliative care. To date, the questionnaires have not been designed to evaluate individual adherence to palliative care guideline.

Making the AGREE tool more user-friendly: the feasibility of a user guide based on Boolean operators

Rationale, aims and objectives The Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument is a generic tool for assessing guideline quality. This feasibility study aimed to reduce the ambiguity and subjectivity associated with AGREE item scoring, and to augment the tool's capacity to differentiate between good- and poor-quality guidelines. Methods A literature review was conducted to ascertain what AGREE instrument adjustments had been reported to date. The AGREE User Guide was then modified by: 1 constructing a detailed set of instructions, or dictionary, using Boolean operators, and 2 overlaying seven criteria to categorize guideline quality. The feasibility of the Boolean-based dictionary was tested by three appraisers using three randomly selected guidelines on low back pain management. The dictionary was then revised and re-tested. Results Of the 52 published studies identified, 14% had modified the instrument by adding or deleting items and 35% had adopted strategies, such as using a consensus approach, to overcome inconsistencies and ensure identical item scoring among appraisers. For the feasibility test, Pearson correlation coefficients ranged from 0.27 to 0.81. Revision and re-testing of the dictionary increased the level of agreement (range 0.41 to 0.94). Application of the revised dictionary not only decreased the variability of the domain scores, but also reduced the tool's reliability among inexperienced appraisers. Conclusion Appraisers found the Boolean-based AGREE User Guide easier to use than the original, which improved their confidence in the tool. Good reliability was achieved in the feasibility test, but the reliability and validity of some of the changes will require further evaluation.

An exploration of how guideline developer capacity and guideline implementability influence implementation and adoption: study protocol

Background

Practice guidelines can improve health care delivery and outcomes but several issues challenge guideline adoption, including their intrinsic attributes, and whether and how they are implemented. It appears that guideline format may influence accessibility and ease of use, which may overcome attitudinal barriers of guideline adoption, and appear to be important to all stakeholders. Guideline content may facilitate various forms of decision making about guideline adoption relevant to different stakeholders. Knowledge and attitudes about, and incentives and capacity for implementation on the part of guideline sponsors may influence whether and how they develop guidelines containing these features, and undertake implementation. Examination of these issues may yield opportunities to improve guideline adoption.

Methods

The attributes hypothesized to facilitate adoption will be expanded by thematic analysis, and quantitative and qualitative summary of the content of international guidelines for two primary care (diabetes, hypertension) and institutional care (chronic ulcer, chronic heart failure) topics. Factors that influence whether and how guidelines are implemented will be explored by qualitative analysis of interviews with individuals affiliated with guideline sponsoring agencies.

Discussion

Previous research examined guideline implementation by measuring rates of compliance with recommendations or associated outcomes, but this produced little insight on how the products themselves, or their implementation, could be improved. This research will establish a theoretical basis upon which to conduct experimental studies to compare the cost-effectiveness of interventions that enhance guideline development and implementation capacity. Such studies could first examine short-term outcomes predictive of guideline utilization, such as recall, attitude toward, confidence in, and adoption intention. If successful, then long-term objective outcomes reflecting the adoption of processes and associated patient care outcomes could be evaluated.

Barriers to physician adherence to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug guidelines: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Despite wide availability of physician guidelines for safer use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and widespread use of these drugs in the US, NSAID prescribing guidelines have been only modestly effective.

AIM

To identify and describe comprehensively barriers to provider adherence to NSAID prescribing guidelines.

METHODS

We conducted interviews with 25 physicians, seeking to identify the major influences explaining physician non-adherence to guidelines. Interviews were standardized and structured probes were used for clarification and detail. All interviews were audio-taped and transcribed. Three independent investigators analysed the transcripts, using the constant-comparative method of qualitative analysis.

RESULTS

Our analysis identified six dominant physician barriers explaining non-adherence to established NSAID prescribing guidelines. These included (i) lack of familiarity with guidelines, (ii) perceived limited validity of guidelines, (iii) limited applicability of guidelines among specific patients, (iv) clinical inertia, (v) influences of prior anecdotal experiences and (vi) medical heuristics.

CONCLUSIONS

A heterogeneous set of influences are barriers to physician adherence to NSAID prescribing guidelines. Suggested measures for improving guideline-concordant prescribing should focus on measures to improve physician education and confidence in guidelines, implementation of physician/pharmacist co-management strategies and expansion of guideline scope.