GRADE Concept Paper 1: Validating the "F.A.C.E" instrument using stakeholder perceptions of feasibility, acceptability, cost, and equity in guideline implement

ROMPER: The RAND/USC OPTIC Method for Policy Expert Ratings

We developed an expert panel approach for identifying expert views on the effectiveness and implementability of population-level policy interventions. ROMPER-the RAND/USC OPTIC Method for Policy Expert Ratings-involves an online, three-round, modified-Delphi process:•Experts rate and comment on policies according to domains of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Evidence-to-Decision framework.•To identify consensus on policy effectiveness and implementability, expert ratings are analyzed using the Inter-Percentile Range Adjusted for Symmetry (IPRAS) technique from the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and visualized using a forest plot. To explain consensus, expert comments are analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis and reported following the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research.•To provide actionable information for decisionmakers, each policy is summarized in a "Policy Profile" adapted from GRADEPro Evidence-to-Decision tables.We validated ROMPER in two studies that successfully recruited the targeted sample size, retained experts through all three rounds, and examined consensus on which policies are (not) effective and implementable. ROMPER protocols, materials, data, and code are openly available on the Open Science Framework with Creative Commons licensing for replication and reuse. ROMPER provides a validated, replicable, open access approach for eliciting expert views on both policy effectiveness and implementability-and for summarizing (lack of) consensus specifically for policymakers.

Expert Views on State Policies to Improve Engagement and Retention in Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder: A Qualitative Analysis of an Online Modified Delphi Process

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to examine expert views on the effectiveness and implementability of state policies to improve engagement and retention in treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD).

METHODS

We conducted a 3-round modified Delphi process using the online ExpertLens platform. Participants included 66 experts on OUD treatment policies. Experts commented on 14 hypothetical state policies targeting treatment engagement and quality of care. Using the GRADE Evidence-to-Decision framework, we conducted reflexive thematic analysis to develop patterns of meaning from the dataset.

RESULTS

Only policies for providing continued access to evidence-based treatment for highly at-risk populations, settings, and periods were seen as effective in meaningfully reducing population-level opioid-related overdose mortality. Experts commented that, although the general public increasingly supports policies expanding medications for OUD and evidence-based care, ongoing stigma about OUD encourages public acceptance of punitive and paternalistic policies. Experts viewed all policies as at least moderately feasible given the current infrastructure and resources, with affordability reliant on long-term cost savings from reduced opioid-related harms. Equitability depended on whether experts perceived a policy as inherently equitable in its design as well as concerns about the potential for inequitable implementation due to structural oppression and interpersonal biases in criminal-legal, healthcare, and other systems.

CONCLUSIONS

Experts believe that supportive (rather than punitive) policies improve engagement and retention in OUD treatment. States could prioritize implementing supportive policies that are patient-centered and take a harm-reduction approach to enhance medications for OUD access and utilization. States could consider deimplementing punitive policies that are coercive, take an abstinence-only approach, and use punitive and restrictive measures.

Learning health systems and evidence ecosystems: a perspective on the future of evidence-based medicine and evidence-based guideline development

Despite forming the cornerstone of modern clinical practice for decades, implementation of evidence-based medicine at scale remains a crucial challenge for health systems. As a result, there has been a growing need for conceptual models to better contextualise and pragmatize the use of evidence-based medicine, particularly in tandem with patient-centred care. In this commentary, we highlight the emergence of the learning health system as one such model and analyse its potential role in pragmatizing both evidence-based medicine and patient-centred care. We apply the learning health system lens to contextualise the key activity of evidence-based guideline development and implementation, and highlight how current inefficiencies and bottlenecks in the evidence synthesis phase of evidence-based guideline development threaten downstream adherence. Lastly, we introduce the evidence ecosystem as a complementary model to learning health systems, and propose how innovative developments from the evidence ecosystem may be integrated with learning health systems to better enable health impact at speed and scale.

Operationalizing the GRADE-equity criterion to inform guideline recommendations: application to a medical cannabis guideline

OBJECTIVES

Incorporating health equity considerations into guideline development often requires information beyond that gathered through traditional evidence synthesis methodology. This article outlines an operationalization plan for the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE)-equity criterion to gather and assess evidence from primary studies within systematic reviews, enhancing guideline recommendations to promote equity. We demonstrate its use in a clinical guideline on medical cannabis for chronic pain.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We reviewed GRADE guidance and resources recommended by team members regarding the use of evidence for equity considerations, drafted an operationalization plan, and iteratively refined it through team discussion and feedback and piloted it on a medicinal cannabis guideline.

RESULTS

We propose a seven-step approach: 1) identify disadvantaged populations, 2) examine available data for specific populations, 3) evaluate population baseline risk for primary outcomes, 4) assess representation of these populations in primary studies, 5) appraise analyses, 6) note barriers to implementation of effective interventions for these populations, and 7) suggest supportive strategies to facilitate implementation of effective interventions.

CONCLUSION

Our approach assists guideline developers in recognizing equity considerations, particularly in resource-constrained settings. Its application across various guideline topics can verify its feasibility and necessary adjustments.

Health equity considerations in guideline development: a rapid scoping review

BACKGROUND

Systematic guidance for considering health equity in guidelines is lacking. This scoping review aims to synthesize current best practices for integrating health equity into guideline development and the benefits or drawbacks of these practices.

METHODS

We searched Ovid MEDLINE ALL and Embase Classic+Embase on the Ovid platform, CINAHL on EBSCO, and Web of Science (Core Collection) from 2010 to 2022. We searched grey literature from 2015 to 2022, using the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health Grey Matters checklist and searches of potentially relevant websites. Articles were screened independently by 1 reviewer. Proposed best practices, advantages and disadvantages, and tools were extracted independently by 1 reviewer and qualitatively synthesized based on the relevant steps of a comprehensive checklist covering the stages of guideline development.

RESULTS

We included 26 articles that proposed best practices for incorporating health equity within the guideline development process. These practices were organized under different stages of the development process, including guideline planning, evidence review, guideline development and dissemination. Included studies provided best practices from guideline producers, articles discussing health equity in current guidelines, articles addressing strategies to increase equity in the guideline implementation process, and literature reviews of promising health equity practices.

INTERPRETATION

Our scoping review identified best practices to incorporate health equity considerations at each phase of guideline development. Identified practices may be used to inform equity-promoting strategies with the guideline development process; however, guideline producers should carefully consider the advantages and disadvantages of best practices when integrating health equity.

Understanding university student priorities for mental health and well‐being support: A mixed‐methods exploration using the person‐based approach

Poor student well-being at UK universities is overstretching institutional support services, highlighting a need for effective new resources. Despite extensive literature on mental health and well-being interventions, students' engagement with support remains unexplored. The study aimed to understand students' experience of engagement with well-being support, identify their well-being needs and form concrete recommendations for future intervention design and delivery. The Person-Based Approach to intervention design was followed to centralise users' experience, in turn maximising acceptability and effectiveness of resources. An online survey (N = 52) was followed by three focus groups (N = 14). Survey data were analysed descriptively, and reflexive thematic analysis was performed on qualitative data. Mixed-methods data integration produced four key student priorities for well-being resources - ease of access, inclusive and preventative approach, sense of community and a safe space, and applying skills to real-life contexts. Five actionable guiding principles for intervention design were produced through consultation with expert stakeholders. This work helps understand why and how students engage with support at university. The resulting recommendations can inform future intervention development, leading to more acceptable, engaging and effective student well-being resources.

Identifying Health Equity Factors That Influence the Public's Perception of COVID-19 Health Information and Recommendations: A Scoping Review

The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted global public health and public trust in health recommendations. Trust in health information may waver in the context of health inequities. The objective of this scoping review is to map evidence on public perceptions of COVID-19 prevention information using the PROGRESS-Plus health equity framework. We systematically searched the MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycInfo, and Embase databases from January 2020 to July 2021. We identified 792 citations and 31 studies published in 15 countries that met all inclusion criteria. The majority (30/31; 96.7%) of the studies used an observational design (74.2% cross-sectional, 16.1% cohort, 6.5% case study, 3.2% experimental trials). Most studies (61.3%) reported on perception, understanding, and uptake, and 35.5% reported on engagement, compliance, and adherence to COVID-19 measures. The most frequently reported sources of COVID-related information were social media, TV, news (newspapers/news websites), and government sources. We identified five important equity factors related to public trust and uptake of recommendations: education and health literacy (19 studies; 61.3%), gender (15 studies; 48.4%), age (15 studies; 48.4%), socioeconomic status (11 studies; 35.5%), and place of residence (10 studies; 32.3%). Our review suggests that equity factors play a role in public perception of COVID-19 information and recommendations. A future systematic review could be conducted to estimate the impact of equity factors on perception and behavior outcomes.

Expert Panel Consensus on State-Level Policies to Improve Engagement and Retention in Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder

Importance

In the US, recent legislation and regulations have been considered, proposed, and implemented to improve the quality of treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD). However, insufficient empirical evidence exists to identify which policies are feasible to implement and successfully improve patient and population-level outcomes.

Objective

To examine expert consensus on the effectiveness and the ability to implement state-level OUD treatment policies.

Evidence Review

This qualitative study used the ExpertLens online platform to conduct a 3-round modified Delphi process to convene 66 stakeholders (health care clinicians, social service practitioners, addiction researchers, health policy decision-makers, policy advocates, and persons with lived experience). Stakeholders participated in 1 of 2 expert panels on 14 hypothetical state-level policies targeting treatment engagement and linkage, evidence-based and integrated care, treatment flexibility, and monitoring or support services. Participants rated policies in round 1, discussed results in round 2, and provided final ratings in round 3. Participants used 4 criteria associated with either the effectiveness or implementability to rate and discuss each policy. The effectiveness panel (n = 29) considered policy effects on treatment engagement, treatment retention, OUD remission, and opioid overdose mortality. The implementation panel (n = 34) considered the acceptability, feasibility, affordability, and equitability of each policy. We measured consensus using the interpercentile range adjusted for symmetry analysis technique from the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method.

Findings

Both panels reached consensus on all items. Experts viewed 2 policies (facilitated access to medications for OUD and automatic Medicaid enrollment for citizens returning from correctional settings) as highly implementable and highly effective in improving patient and population-level outcomes. Participants rated hub-and-spoke-type policies and provision of financial incentives to emergency departments for treatment linkage as effective; however, they also rated these policies as facing implementation barriers associated with feasibility and affordability. Coercive policies and policies levying additional requirements on individuals with OUD receiving treatment (eg, drug toxicology testing, counseling requirements) were viewed as low-value policies (ie, decreasing treatment engagement and retention, increasing overdose mortality, and increasing health inequities).

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this study may provide urgently needed consensus on policies for states to consider either adopting or deimplementing in their efforts to address the opioid overdose crisis.

Health Equity Implications of the COVID-19 Lockdown and Visitation Strategies in Long-Term Care Homes in Ontario: A Mixed Method Study

The COVID-19 pandemic has negatively impacted the lives and well-being of long-term care home residents. This mixed-method study examined the health equity implications of the COVID-19 lockdown and visitation strategies in long-term care homes in Ontario. We recruited long-term care home residents, their family members and designated caregivers, as well as healthcare workers from 235 homes in Ontario, Canada. We used online surveys and virtual interviews to assess the priority, feasibility, and acceptability of visitation strategies, and to explore the lived experiences of participants under the lockdown and thereafter. A total of n = 201 participants completed a survey and a purposive sample of n = 15 long-term care home residents and their family members completed an interview. The initial lockdown deteriorated residents’ physical, mental, and cognitive well-being, and disrupted family and community ties. Transitional visitation strategies, such as virtual visits, were criticised for lack of emotional value and limited feasibility. Designated caregiver programs emerged as a prioritised and highly acceptable strategy, one that residents and family members demanded continuous and unconditional access to. Our findings suggest a series of equity implications that highlight a person-centred approach to visitation strategies and promote emotional connection between residents and their loved ones.