How equity is addressed in clinical practice guidelines: a content analysis

Barriers to and opportunities for advancing racial equity in cervical cancer screening in the United States

BACKGROUND

In the United States (U.S.), racially minoritized people have higher rates of cervical cancer morbidity and mortality compared to white individuals as a result of racialized structural, social, economic, and health care inequities. However, cervical cancer screening guidelines are based on studies of predominately white individuals and do not substantially discuss or address racialized cervical cancer inequities and their social determinants, including racism.

METHODS

We conducted in-depth interviews with health care providers (N = 30) and key informants with expertise in health equity (N = 18). We utilized semi-structured interview guides that addressed providers' views and experiences delivering cervical cancer screening to racially minoritized individuals and key informants' recommendations for advancing racial equity in the development and implementation of cervical cancer screening guidelines. Interviews were analyzed using a template style thematic analysis approach involving deductive and inductive coding, memo writing, and matrix analysis for theme development.

RESULTS

Most health care providers adopted a universal, one-size-fits-all approach to cervical cancer screening with the stated goal of ensuring racial equality. Despite frequently acknowledging the existence of racialized cervical cancer inequities, few providers recognized the role of social inequities in influencing them, and none discussed the impact of racism. In contrast, key informants overwhelmingly recommended that providers adopt an approach to cervical cancer screening and follow-up care that recognizes the role of racism in shaping racialized cervical cancer and related social inequities, is developed in partnership with racially minoritized communities, and involves person-centered, structurally-competent, and trauma-informed practices that address racially minoritized peoples' unique lived experiences in historical and social context. This racism-conscious approach is not to be confused with race-based medicine, which is an essentialist and racist approach to health care that treats race as a biological variable rather than as a social and political construct.

CONCLUSIONS

Developers and implementers of cervical cancer screening guidelines should explicitly recognize and address the impact of racism on cervical cancer screening, follow-up care, and outcomes, meaningfully incorporate racially minoritized communities' perspectives and experiences, and facilitate provider- and institutional-level practices that foster racial equity in cervical cancer.

An evaluation of the quality, suitability and impact on equity of clinical practice guidelines relevant to preterm birth for use in Aotearoa New Zealand

BACKGROUND

Preterm birth is a leading cause of perinatal morbidity and mortality and a defining event for pregnant people, infants, and whānau (extended families). Recommendations have been made for a national preterm birth prevention initiative focusing on equity in Aotearoa New Zealand, including the development of a national best practice guide. An understanding of the number and quality of guidelines, and consideration of their suitability and impact on equity is required.

METHODS

Guidelines were identified through a systematic literature search, search of professional bodies websites, and invitation to regional health services in Aotearoa New Zealand. Obstetric and midwifery clinical directors were invited to report on guideline use. Identified guidelines were appraised by a 23-member trans-disciplinary Review Panel; quantitatively using the AGREE-II instrument and qualitatively using modified ADAPTE questions. The quality of guidelines available but not in use was compared against those in current use, and by health services by level of maternity and neonatal care. Major themes affecting implementation and impact on equity were identified using Braun and Clarke methodology.

RESULTS

A total of 235 guidelines were included for appraisal. Guidelines available but not in use by regional health services scored higher in quality than guidelines in current use (median domain score Rigour and Development 47.5 versus 18.8, p < 0.001, median domain score Overall Assessment 62.5 versus 44.4, p < 0.001). Guidelines in use by regional health services with tertiary maternity and neonatal services had higher median AGREE II scores in several domains, than those with secondary level services (median domain score Overall Assessment 50.0 versus 37.5, p < 0.001). Groups identified by the Review Panel as experiencing the greatest constraints and limitations to guideline implementation were rural, provincial, low socioeconomic, Māori, and Pacific populations. Identified themes to improve equity included a targeted approach to groups experiencing the least advantage; a culturally considered approach; nationally consistent guidance; and improved funding to support implementation of guideline recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

We have systematically identified and assessed guidelines on preterm birth. High-quality guidelines will inform a national best practice guide for use in Taonga Tuku Iho, a knowledge translation project for equity in preterm birth care and outcomes in Aotearoa.

Fostering equitable change in health services: Using critical reflexivity to challenge dominant discourses in low back pain care in Australia

OBJECTIVES

Justice and equity-focused practices in health services play a critical but overlooked role in low back pain (LBP) care. Critical reflexivity - the ability to examine and challenge power relations, and broader social issues embedded in everyday life - can be a useful tool to foster practices that are more socially just. No research has yet explored this approach in back pain health services. This study sought to understand how clinicians construct LBP in relation to broader socio-cultural-political aspects of care and explore if those constructions changed when clinicians engaged with critically reflexive dialogues with researchers.

METHODS

Using critical discourse analysis methods, this qualitative study explored institutionalised patterns of knowledge in the construction of LBP care. We conducted 22 critically reflexive dialogues with 29 clinicians from two health services in Australia - a private physiotherapy clinic and a public multidisciplinary pain clinic.

RESULTS

Our analyses suggested that clinicians and services often constructed LBP care at an individual level. This dominant individualistic discourse constrained consideration of justice-oriented practices in the care of people with LBP. Through dialogues, discursive constructions of LBP care expanded to incorporate systems and health service workplace practices. This expansion fostered more equitable clinical and service practices - such as assisting patients to navigate health care systems, considering patients' socioeconomic circumstances when developing treatment plans, encouraging staff discussion of possible systemic changes to enhance justice, and fostering a more inclusive workplace culture. Although such expansions faced challenges, incorporating broader discourses enabled recommendations to address LBP care inequities.

CONCLUSIONS

Critical reflexivity can be a tool to foster greater social justice within health services. By expanding constructions of LBP care beyond individuals, critical reflexive dialogues can foster discussion and actions towards more equitable workplace cultures, services and systems.

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.

Broadening the diversity of consumers engaged in guidelines: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Guideline developers are encouraged to engage patients, carers and their representatives ('consumers') from diverse backgrounds in guideline development to produce more widely applicable guidelines. However, consumers from diverse backgrounds are infrequently included in guidelines and there is scant research to support guideline developers to do this.

OBJECTIVES

To identify principles and approaches to broaden the diversity of consumers engaged in guideline development.

DESIGN

Scoping review and semi-structured interviews.

METHODS

We conducted comprehensive searches to March 2020 for studies, reports and guidance documents. Inclusion criteria included the terms 'consumer' (patients, carers and their representatives), 'diversity' (defined using the PROGRESS-PLUS mnemonic) and 'consumer engagement' (the active involvement of consumers at any stage of guideline development). We also conducted four interviews with consumers and guideline developers. We used descriptive synthesis to identify themes, and summarised information about implemented approaches used to broaden diversity of consumers in guidelines.

RESULTS

From 10 included documents, we identified eight themes. Themes covered general engagement concepts (Respectful partnerships; Recruitment; Expectations, process and review); specific concepts about guideline development group (GDG) engagement (Characteristics of guideline personnel; Consumers' role, characteristics and prominence; Preparing and supporting consumers); and other (non-GDG) approaches (Online methods; Consultations and research-based approaches). The most commonly included PROGRESS-PLUS categories were Disability, Race/culture/ethnicity/language, Place of residence and Other vulnerable (eg, 'disadvantaged groups'). Each theme included the views of both consumers and guideline developers. We found descriptions of 12 implemented engagement approaches to broaden diversity of consumers in guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

Relationship-building, mitigating power imbalances and meeting consumers where they are at underpin our findings. Engaging with diverse groups may require greater attention to building formal, respectful partnerships and employing inclusive engagement methods.

PROTOCOL: Guidance for stakeholder engagement in guideline development: A systematic review

This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows: to identify, describe, and summarize existing guidance and methods for multistakeholder engagement throughout the health guideline development process.

The Health Inequalities Assessment Toolkit: supporting integration of equity into applied health research

BACKGROUND

Despite insistent calls for more and better evidence to inform action to reduce health inequities, applied health research sensitive to these inequalities is rare. Recognising this problem, the Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Research and Care in the North West Coast (England) developed the Health Inequalities Assessment Toolkit (HIAT) to support those involved in health research to integrate equity into their work.

OBJECTIVE

This paper reports on an evaluation of the extent to which HIAT enhances the equity focus of the work of users.

METHODS

The evaluation used semi-structured interviews, focus groups and workshops (n = 131 respondents including Public Advisers, university, NHS and local government partners). Routine data included HIAT feedback forms.

FINDINGS

HIAT can help to strengthen the equity focus of applied health research by: increasing understanding of how socioeconomic inequities impact on health; building capacity for integrating equity into all aspects of research, implementation and capacity building; stimulating thinking on action to address local structural drivers of health inequalities; and increasing understanding of the positive contribution public involvement can make to research.

CONCLUSION

If we are to advance health equity goals delivering research and training needs to be combined with political commitment to create more equal societies.

Protocol for the development of guidance for stakeholder engagement in health and healthcare guideline development and implementation

BACKGROUND

Stakeholder engagement has become widely accepted as a necessary component of guideline development and implementation. While frameworks for developing guidelines express the need for those potentially affected by guideline recommendations to be involved in their development, there is a lack of consensus on how this should be done in practice. Further, there is a lack of guidance on how to equitably and meaningfully engage multiple stakeholders. We aim to develop guidance for the meaningful and equitable engagement of multiple stakeholders in guideline development and implementation.

METHODS

This will be a multi-stage project. The first stage is to conduct a series of four systematic reviews. These will (1) describe existing guidance and methods for stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation, (2) characterize barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation, (3) explore the impact of stakeholder engagement on guideline development and implementation, and (4) identify issues related to conflicts of interest when engaging multiple stakeholders in guideline development and implementation.

DISCUSSION

We will collaborate with our multiple and diverse stakeholders to develop guidance for multi-stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation. We will use the results of the systematic reviews to develop a candidate list of draft guidance recommendations and will seek broad feedback on the draft guidance via an online survey of guideline developers and external stakeholders. An invited group of representatives from all stakeholder groups will discuss the results of the survey at a consensus meeting which will inform the development of the final guidance papers. Our overall goal is to improve the development of guidelines through meaningful and equitable multi-stakeholder engagement, and subsequently to improve health outcomes and reduce inequities in health.

[GRADE equity guidelines 2: Considering health equity in GRADE guideline development - equity extension of the guideline development checklist]

OBJECTIVE

To provide guidance for guideline developers on how to consider health equity at key stages of the guideline development process.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Literature review followed by group discussions and consensus building.

RESULTS

The key stages at which guideline developers could consider equity include setting priorities, guideline group membership, identifying the target audience(s), generating the guideline questions, considering the importance of outcomes and interventions, deciding what evidence to include and searching for evidence, summarizing the evidence and considering additional information, wording of recommendations, and evaluation and use. We provide examples of how guidelines have actually considered equity at each of these stages.

CONCLUSION

Guideline projects should consider the aforementioned suggestions for recommendations that are equity sensitive.

[GRADE equity guidelines 1: Considering health equity in GRADE guideline development - introduction and rationale]

OBJECTIVES

This article introduces the rationale and methods for explicitly considering health equity in the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology for developing clinical, public health, and health system guidelines. This article is a German translation of the original version published in English.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We searched for guideline methodology articles, conceptual articles about health equity, and examples of guidelines that considered health equity explicitly. We held three meetings with GRADE Working Group members and invited comments from the GRADE Working Group listserve.

RESULTS

We developed three articles on incorporating equity considerations into the overall approach to guideline development, rating certainty, and assembling the evidence base and evidence to decision and/or recommendation.

CONCLUSION

Clinical and public health guidelines have a role to play in promoting health equity by explicitly considering equity in the process of guideline development.

Appraisal of the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines in the Philippines

PURPOSE

The Republic of the Philippines has recently enacted the Universal Health Care Law, which mandates the Philippines Department of Health (DOH) to operationalize evidence-based clinical practice guideline (CPG) development. As a baseline to the foregoing task, the aim of this study was to appraise the methodological quality of CPGs previously developed and currently being disseminated in the Philippines. A multimethod search for CPGs was implemented. CPGs were independently evaluated using a modified version of the Knowledge Management Plus CPG appraisal tool.

FINDINGS

Eighty-seven CPGs were included in the appraisal. Majority implemented processes to ensure validity, ie, consideration for patient groups, management options, benefits, and harms (99%), and indicated strength of their recommendations (89%). Seventy-seven CPGs (89%) evaluated the evidence for local applicability. Of the 87 CPGs, 20 CPGs (23%) considered equity in the development process. The development process differed among CPGs with varying degrees of utilization of GRADE methodology (52%), disclosure of funding sources (72%), and engagement of technical support external to the development body (3%). Mean duration of CPG development was 1 year (SD 5.9 months), and mean interval between updates was 6 years and 1 month (SD 37.8 months).

CONCLUSION

Although most of the CPGs fulfilled essential criteria for quality recommendations (validity and applicability), equity considerations were limited. Furthermore, only half used the GRADE approach and development and dissemination practices differed substantially between CPGs. Thus, it is recommended that a standard CPG development process be made available by the DOH to be utilized by CPG developers in the Philippines.

GRADE equity guidelines 2: considering health equity in GRADE guideline development: equity extension of the guideline development checklist

OBJECTIVE

To provide guidance for guideline developers on how to consider health equity at key stages of the guideline development process.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Literature review followed by group discussions and consensus building.

RESULTS

The key stages at which guideline developers could consider equity include setting priorities, guideline group membership, identifying the target audience(s), generating the guideline questions, considering the importance of outcomes and interventions, deciding what evidence to include and searching for evidence, summarizing the evidence and considering additional information, wording of recommendations, and evaluation and use. We provide examples of how guidelines have actually considered equity at each of these stages.

CONCLUSION

Guideline projects should consider the aforementioned suggestions for recommendations that are equity sensitive.

GRADE equity guidelines 1: considering health equity in GRADE guideline development: introduction and rationale

Objectives

This article introduces the rationale and methods for explicitly considering health equity in the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology for development of clinical, public health, and health system guidelines.

Study Design and Setting

We searched for guideline methodology articles, conceptual articles about health equity, and examples of guidelines that considered health equity explicitly. We held three meetings with GRADE Working Group members and invited comments from the GRADE Working Group listserve.

Results

We developed three articles on incorporating equity considerations into the overall approach to guideline development, rating certainty, and assembling the evidence base and evidence to decision and/or recommendation.

Conclusion

Clinical and public health guidelines have a role to play in promoting health equity by explicitly considering equity in the process of guideline development.