Quality of clinical practice guidelines in Japan remains low: A cross-sectional meta-epidemiological study

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to evaluate the characteristics, quality, and related factors of the Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) published in recent years.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

In this cross-sectional, meta-epidemiological study, we conducted a Google search for CPGs published by 30 Japanese medical societies that are the basis for training specialties between 2018 and 2019. We used the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool and the Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare (RIGHT) statement to evaluate the quality.

RESULTS

We included 53 systematic review-based CPGs. The median score was 0.54 (IQR, 0.38-0.62) for Stakeholder involvement, 0.57 (IQR, 0.51-0.66) in Rigor of development, 0.33 (IQR 0.21-0.46) in Applicability, and 0.63 (IQR 0.46-0.73) in Editorial independence. The number of guideline developers/clinical question ratio (odds ratio [OR]: 4.14, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.97, 8.70) and the adopted guideline development methods (OR: 3.69, 95% CI: 1.14, 12.0) were significantly related to the Rigor of development.

CONCLUSION

The quality of Japanese CPGs published in recent years remains low. Our study suggests that increasing contributors and adopting the latest guideline development methods at the beginning of the project may improve the quality of the Japanese CPGs.

Exploring approaches to identify, incorporate and report patient preferences in clinical guidelines: Qualitative interviews with guideline developers

BACKGROUND

Clinical guidelines informed by patient preferences are more likely to be used and widely advocated, yet research shows that few guidelines reflect patient preferences.

OBJECTIVE

Explore how developers generate guidelines informed by patient preferences.

PATIENT INVOLVEMENT

Seventeen patients were involved as interview participants.

METHODS

Using a basic descriptive approach, we conducted and analyzed semi-structured telephone interviews with 50 participants who were involved in developing guidelines on various topics. The sample included 17 patients, 16 clinicians and 17 managers from a total of 7 countries.

RESULTS

Participants used one or more approaches to identify preferences, patient panelists, focus groups, surveys and review of published research, despite acknowledging they identified similar preferences. Participants said they incorporated preferences in all guideline development steps, but provided little detail of specific processes. Few participants said their guidelines explicitly reported how patients were engaged, preferences identified, or how preferences influenced development processes or the guideline. Enablers were patient and clinician training, supportive coordinators and chairs, involving experienced patients, and assistance from qualitative and review experts. Barriers were finding and preparing patients, clinician skepticism about benefits, and token patient involvement. Participants recommended research on how to generate preference-informed guidelines.

DISCUSSION

Ideal approaches to identify, incorporate and report patient preferences in guidelines are unclear and unproven.

PRACTICAL VALUE

Findings revealed specific ways that developers can enhance their processes (e.g. patient training, supportive coordinators and chairs, involve experts in qualitative researcher and systematic reviews) and key issues that warrant ongoing research (e.g. how best to incorporate and report preferences).

Comparison of methodological quality between the 2007 and 2019 Canadian dietary guidelines

OBJECTIVE

With significant shifts in the dietary recommendations between the 2007 and 2019 Canadian dietary guidelines, such as promoting plant-based food intake, reducing highly processed food intake and advocating the practice of food skills, we compared their differences in guideline development methods.

DESIGN

Two reviewers used twenty-five guided criteria to appraise the methods used to develop the most recent dietary guidelines against those outlined in the 2014 WHO Handbook for Guideline Development.

SETTING

Canada.

PARTICIPANTS

2007 and 2019 dietary guidelines.

RESULTS

We found that the 2019 guidelines were more evidence-based and met 80 % (20/25) of the WHO criteria. For example, systematic reviews and health organisation authoritative reports, but not industry reports, constituted the evidence base for the dietary recommendations. However, recommendations on food sustainability and food skill practice were driven primarily by stakeholders' interests. By contrast, less information was recorded about the process used to develop the 2007 guidelines, resulting in 24 % (6/25) consistency with the WHO standards.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis suggests that a more transparent and evidence-based approach is used to develop the 2019 Canadian dietary guidelines and that method criteria should support further incorporation of nutrition priorities (food sustainability and food skills) in future dietary guideline development.