Development, Evaluation, and Implementation of Guideline Adaptation and Its Frameworks: A Meta-Epidemiological Study of English-Language Guidelines

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Yuan Zhang, Shu Wang, Zhixuan Wen, Yueming Yang, Yuxuan Zhang, Yixiong Geng, Yaguang Peng, Yali Liu
{"title":"Development, Evaluation, and Implementation of Guideline Adaptation and Its Frameworks: A Meta-Epidemiological Study of English-Language Guidelines","authors":"Yuan Zhang,&nbsp;Shu Wang,&nbsp;Zhixuan Wen,&nbsp;Yueming Yang,&nbsp;Yuxuan Zhang,&nbsp;Yixiong Geng,&nbsp;Yaguang Peng,&nbsp;Yali Liu","doi":"10.1111/jep.70261","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Guideline adaptation refers to the process of modifying or tailoring existing clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) in addressing local health system needs, improving the relevance of recommendations, and overcoming barriers like resource constraints. However, limited information is known about the current development, evaluation, and implementation of guideline adaptation.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aim</h3>\n \n <p>This study aims to evaluate the methodological quality, utilization, and implementation of English-language adapted CPGs and compare frameworks used for adaptation.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>This meta-epidemiological study systematically searched and included adapted CPGs and original CPGs in English to the end of 2022 by applying the two most widely used adaptation frameworks, ADAPTE and GRADE-ADOLOPMENT. Their characteristics, utilization, and implementation were analyzed, the completeness of the adaptation steps was assessed via quality evaluation, and the two adaptation frameworks were compared in exploring their advantages, limitations, and suitable applicable situations.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>A total of 30 adapted CPGs were included, and 75 original CPGs were identified. Most of the adapted and original CPGs were developed by developed countries/regions and had close connections, covering a wide range of populations and fields. However, resource-limited countries/regions participate less in guideline adaptation, requiring additional consideration. The adapted CPGs that applied the ADAPTE and GRADE-ADOLOPMENT frameworks had insufficient adaptation quality, with mean reporting rates of 64.7% and 78.6%, respectively. Comparisons of the adaptation methods revealed several key gaps, such as rigor, conciseness, efficiency, and transparency, and the advantages of applying guideline adaptation in resource-limited areas have not been fully revealed, indicating the need for a future unified adaptation framework that considers the advantages and limitations of current methods.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Several shortcomings in the methodological quality of current adapted CPGs were identified, alerting appraisals before applying their recommendations; and key gaps existed regarding available guideline adaptation methods, requiring a future unified framework to be developed. Further research should examine non-English guidelines to enhance the global applicability of these findings.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"31 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.70261","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Guideline adaptation refers to the process of modifying or tailoring existing clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) in addressing local health system needs, improving the relevance of recommendations, and overcoming barriers like resource constraints. However, limited information is known about the current development, evaluation, and implementation of guideline adaptation.

Aim

This study aims to evaluate the methodological quality, utilization, and implementation of English-language adapted CPGs and compare frameworks used for adaptation.

Methods

This meta-epidemiological study systematically searched and included adapted CPGs and original CPGs in English to the end of 2022 by applying the two most widely used adaptation frameworks, ADAPTE and GRADE-ADOLOPMENT. Their characteristics, utilization, and implementation were analyzed, the completeness of the adaptation steps was assessed via quality evaluation, and the two adaptation frameworks were compared in exploring their advantages, limitations, and suitable applicable situations.

Results

A total of 30 adapted CPGs were included, and 75 original CPGs were identified. Most of the adapted and original CPGs were developed by developed countries/regions and had close connections, covering a wide range of populations and fields. However, resource-limited countries/regions participate less in guideline adaptation, requiring additional consideration. The adapted CPGs that applied the ADAPTE and GRADE-ADOLOPMENT frameworks had insufficient adaptation quality, with mean reporting rates of 64.7% and 78.6%, respectively. Comparisons of the adaptation methods revealed several key gaps, such as rigor, conciseness, efficiency, and transparency, and the advantages of applying guideline adaptation in resource-limited areas have not been fully revealed, indicating the need for a future unified adaptation framework that considers the advantages and limitations of current methods.

Conclusion

Several shortcomings in the methodological quality of current adapted CPGs were identified, alerting appraisals before applying their recommendations; and key gaps existed regarding available guideline adaptation methods, requiring a future unified framework to be developed. Further research should examine non-English guidelines to enhance the global applicability of these findings.

指南改编及其框架的发展、评估和实施:英语指南的元流行病学研究
指南调整是指修改或调整现有临床实践指南(cpg)以满足当地卫生系统需求、提高建议的相关性以及克服资源限制等障碍的过程。然而,目前关于指南改编的发展、评价和实施的信息有限。本研究旨在评估英语改编CPGs的方法质量、使用和实施情况,并比较改编过程中使用的框架。方法本meta流行病学研究采用ADAPTE和GRADE-ADOLOPMENT两种最广泛使用的适应框架,系统检索并纳入截至2022年底的英文改编cpg和原版cpg。分析了两种适应框架的特点、利用和实施情况,通过质量评价对适应步骤的完备性进行了评价,并对两种适应框架的优势、局限性和适用情况进行了比较。结果共纳入30个改编cpg,鉴定出75个原始cpg。改编和原始CPGs大多由发达国家/地区开发,联系密切,覆盖人群和领域广泛。然而,资源有限的国家/地区较少参与指南调整,需要额外考虑。采用ADAPTE和grade - adolopdevelopment框架的适应性CPGs适应质量不足,平均报告率分别为64.7%和78.6%。对各种适应方法的比较揭示了一些关键的差距,如严谨性、简洁性、效率和透明度,以及在资源有限地区应用指南适应的优势尚未完全揭示,这表明未来需要一个统一的适应框架,考虑到现有方法的优点和局限性。结论发现了当前适应性CPGs在方法学质量上的几个缺陷,在应用其建议之前提醒评估;在现有的指南适应方法方面存在关键差距,需要未来开发一个统一的框架。进一步的研究应该检查非英语指南,以提高这些发现的全球适用性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
4.20%
发文量
143
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice aims to promote the evaluation and development of clinical practice across medicine, nursing and the allied health professions. All aspects of health services research and public health policy analysis and debate are of interest to the Journal whether studied from a population-based or individual patient-centred perspective. Of particular interest to the Journal are submissions on all aspects of clinical effectiveness and efficiency including evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, clinical decision making, clinical services organisation, implementation and delivery, health economic evaluation, health process and outcome measurement and new or improved methods (conceptual and statistical) for systematic inquiry into clinical practice. Papers may take a classical quantitative or qualitative approach to investigation (or may utilise both techniques) or may take the form of learned essays, structured/systematic reviews and critiques.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信