The Guideline Language and Format Instrument (GLAFI): development process and international needs assessment survey.

Samir Gupta, Rosalind Tang, Kadia Petricca, Ivan D Florez, Monika Kastner
{"title":"The Guideline Language and Format Instrument (GLAFI): development process and international needs assessment survey.","authors":"Samir Gupta,&nbsp;Rosalind Tang,&nbsp;Kadia Petricca,&nbsp;Ivan D Florez,&nbsp;Monika Kastner","doi":"10.1186/s13012-022-01219-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Successful guideline implementation depends both on factors extrinsic to guidelines and their intrinsic features. In the Guideline Implementability for Decision Excellence Model (GUIDE-M), \"communicating\" content (language and format) is one of three core determinants of intrinsic implementability, but is seldom addressed. Our aims were to develop a tool that could be used by guideline developers to optimize language and format during development; identify gaps in this type of guidance in existing resources; and evaluate the perceived need for and usefulness of such a tool among guideline developers.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Our mixed-methods design consisted of (1) content development (selection and organization of evidence-based constructs from the GUIDE-M into a prototype Guideline Language and Format Instrument (GLAFI), followed by face validation with guideline developers); (2) document analysis (duplicate) of seven existing guideline tools to measure coverage of GLAFI items and identify new items; and (3) an international survey of guideline developers (corresponding authors of recent Canadian Medical Association or Guidelines International Network database guidelines) to measure perceived importance of language and format, quality of existing resources, and usefulness of a language and format tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>GLAFI items were organized into 4 language and 4 format subdomains. In face validation with guideline developers (17 clinicians, 1 methodologist), all agreed that the tool would improve guideline implementability and 93% indicated a desire for regular use. In the existing guideline tool document analysis, only 14/44 (31.8%) GLAFI items were operationalized in at least one tool. We received survey responses from 148/674 (22.0%) contacted guideline authors representing 45 organizations (9 countries). Language was rated as \"extremely important\" or \"important\" in determining uptake by 94% of respondents, and format by 84%. Correspondingly, 72% and 70% indicated that their organization would likely use such a tool.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Optimal language and format are fundamental to guideline implementability but often overlooked. The GLAFI tool operationalizes evidence-based constructs, most of which are absent in existing guideline tools. Guideline developers perceive these concepts to be important and express a willingness to use such a tool. The GLAFI should be further tested and refined with guideline developers and its impact on end-users measured.</p>","PeriodicalId":417097,"journal":{"name":"Implementation Science : IS","volume":" ","pages":"47"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9295534/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Implementation Science : IS","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-022-01219-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: Successful guideline implementation depends both on factors extrinsic to guidelines and their intrinsic features. In the Guideline Implementability for Decision Excellence Model (GUIDE-M), "communicating" content (language and format) is one of three core determinants of intrinsic implementability, but is seldom addressed. Our aims were to develop a tool that could be used by guideline developers to optimize language and format during development; identify gaps in this type of guidance in existing resources; and evaluate the perceived need for and usefulness of such a tool among guideline developers.

Methods: Our mixed-methods design consisted of (1) content development (selection and organization of evidence-based constructs from the GUIDE-M into a prototype Guideline Language and Format Instrument (GLAFI), followed by face validation with guideline developers); (2) document analysis (duplicate) of seven existing guideline tools to measure coverage of GLAFI items and identify new items; and (3) an international survey of guideline developers (corresponding authors of recent Canadian Medical Association or Guidelines International Network database guidelines) to measure perceived importance of language and format, quality of existing resources, and usefulness of a language and format tool.

Results: GLAFI items were organized into 4 language and 4 format subdomains. In face validation with guideline developers (17 clinicians, 1 methodologist), all agreed that the tool would improve guideline implementability and 93% indicated a desire for regular use. In the existing guideline tool document analysis, only 14/44 (31.8%) GLAFI items were operationalized in at least one tool. We received survey responses from 148/674 (22.0%) contacted guideline authors representing 45 organizations (9 countries). Language was rated as "extremely important" or "important" in determining uptake by 94% of respondents, and format by 84%. Correspondingly, 72% and 70% indicated that their organization would likely use such a tool.

Conclusions: Optimal language and format are fundamental to guideline implementability but often overlooked. The GLAFI tool operationalizes evidence-based constructs, most of which are absent in existing guideline tools. Guideline developers perceive these concepts to be important and express a willingness to use such a tool. The GLAFI should be further tested and refined with guideline developers and its impact on end-users measured.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

指导语言和格式工具(GLAFI):发展进程和国际需求评估调查。
背景:指南的成功实施既取决于指南的外在因素,也取决于指南的内在特征。在卓越决策模型的可实施性指南(GUIDE-M)中,“沟通”内容(语言和格式)是内在可实施性的三个核心决定因素之一,但很少得到解决。我们的目标是开发一种工具,供指南开发人员在开发过程中优化语言和格式;确定现有资源中这类指导的差距;并评估指南开发人员对这种工具的感知需求和有用性。方法:我们的混合方法设计包括:(1)内容开发(从GUIDE-M中选择并组织循证构式,形成指南语言和格式工具(GLAFI)原型,然后与指南开发者进行面对面验证);(2)文献分析(副本)的七个现有的指导工具,以衡量GLAFI项目的覆盖率和确定新的项目;(3)对指南开发者(最近加拿大医学协会或指南国际网络数据库指南的通讯作者)进行国际调查,以衡量语言和格式的感知重要性、现有资源的质量以及语言和格式工具的有用性。结果:GLAFI条目被组织成4个语言和4个格式子域。在与指南开发者(17名临床医生,1名方法学家)的面对面验证中,所有人都同意该工具将提高指南的可实施性,93%的人表示希望经常使用该工具。在现有的指导工具文件分析中,只有14/44 (31.8%)GLAFI项目在至少一个工具中被操作。我们收到了148/674位(22.0%)联系的指南作者的调查回复,这些作者代表45个组织(9个国家)。94%的受访者将语言评为“极其重要”或“重要”,84%的受访者将格式评为“重要”。相应地,72%和70%的人表示他们的组织可能会使用这样的工具。结论:最佳语言和格式是指南可实施性的基础,但往往被忽视。GLAFI工具实现了基于证据的构建,其中大多数在现有的指南工具中是不存在的。指南开发人员认为这些概念很重要,并表示愿意使用这样的工具。应进一步测试和完善全球环境指数,制定指南,并衡量其对最终用户的影响。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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