Clinical and Public Health Guidelines最新文献

{"title":"Correction to “Planning a Clinical Practice Guideline Revision for a Core Set of Outcome Measures in Adults Undergoing Neurologic Physical Therapy, Part 2: Determining Stakeholders' Uptake and Recommendations”","authors":"","doi":"10.1002/gin2.70092","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.70092","url":null,"abstract":"<p>J. E. Sullivan, K. Potter, M. Bland, et al., “Planning a Clinical Practice Guideline Revision for a Core Set of Outcome Measures in Adults Undergoing Neurologic Physical Therapy, Part 2: Determining Stakeholders’ Uptake and Recommendations,” <i>Clinical and Public Health Guidelines</i> 3 (2026): e70085. https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.70085.</p><p>In Table 2, line 5, there is a typo in the header, “Educator/researchers <i>n</i> = <b>2</b>103”:</p><p><b>TABLE 2</b>. Clinical utility and core set use responses.\u0000\u0000 </p><p>It should read, “Educator/researchers <i>n</i> = 103”:</p><p><b>TABLE 2</b>. Clinical utility and core set use responses.\u0000\u0000 </p><p>This has now been corrected in the published article.</p><p>We apologize for this error.</p>","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"3 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.70092","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"149146047","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Corrigendum to “The Values and Preferences of People Living With Motor Neurone Disease (MND): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis”","authors":"","doi":"10.1002/gin2.70090","DOIUrl":"10.1002/gin2.70090","url":null,"abstract":"<p>T. H. Barker, L. N. Bulto, G. Holland, et al., “The Values and Preferences of People Living With Motor Neurone Disease (MND): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” Clinical and Public Health Guidelines 3 (2026): e70080.https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.70080.</p><p><b>The second line of the paragraph of Section 2.6 Data Synthesis states:</b> We used DerSimonian-Laird random-effects models when four or more studies contributed to a meta-analysis, and inverse variance fixed-effect models when three of fewer studies contributed, due to unreliable variance estimation [23, 40].</p><p><b>The correct sentence should be:</b> We used DerSimonian-Laird random-effects models when four or more effect estimates contributed to a meta-analysis, and inverse variance fixed-effect models when three or fewer effect estimates contributed, due to unreliable variance estimation [23, 40].</p><p><b>The paragraph of Section 3.4.3 Health-Related Quality for Adults Diagnosed With ALS at Different Stage of Disease Progression (King's) states:</b> Two studies utilising a UK preference set provided valuations according to Kin's staging [44, 55]. Pooled hrQoL declined as disease progressed (Figure 2); stage 1 (0.70, 95%CI: 0.60–0.81), stage 2 (0.55, 95%CI: 0.47–0.64), stage 3 (0.49, 95%CI: 0.41–0.57) and stage 4 (0.31, 95%CI: −0.07–0.69). … While the overall mean was 0.52 (95%CI: 0.52–0.6), this requires cautious interpretation due to the extreme heterogeneity …</p><p><b>The correct text should be:</b> Two studies utilising a UK preference set provided valuations according to King's staging [44, 55]. Pooled hrQoL declined as disease progressed (Figure 2); stage 1 (0.71, 95%CI: 0.68–0.74), stage 2 (0.56, 95%CI: 0.54–0.59), stage 3 (0.49, 95%CI: 0.47–0.52) and stage 4 (0.40, 95%CI: 0.36–0.44). … While the overall mean was 0.52 (95%CI: 0.44–0.60), this requires cautious interpretation due to the extreme heterogeneity …</p><p>Neither error affects the data extracted, the analyses conducted, the certainty of evidence assessments, or the conclusions of the review.</p><p>We apologize for this error.</p>","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"3 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13648014/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"149139760","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Preserving Patient Influence During Interrupted Guideline Participation","authors":"Ting-Yi Hung,&nbsp;Lien-Chung Wei","doi":"10.1002/gin2.70093","DOIUrl":"10.1002/gin2.70093","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;Orduhan and colleagues show how training, supportive group dynamics and recognition can strengthen patient involvement in guideline development [&lt;span&gt;1&lt;/span&gt;]. They appropriately acknowledge the educational and organisational selectivity of their sample. A further question is whether participation remains influential when it cannot remain continuous. The study recruited people with previous guideline experience and did not collect reasons for nonparticipation [&lt;span&gt;1&lt;/span&gt;]. Its findings therefore do not directly evaluate support for contributors whose availability changes during guideline development.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;This distinction matters when translating the findings to mental health guidelines. A person's expertise by experience does not disappear during a period of reduced availability. Nor should a psychiatric diagnosis be taken as evidence that participation will be unreliable. The relevant design question is whether the process accommodates individually identified, changing support needs. The GIN toolkit already recommends reassessing support because physical and mental health conditions can fluctuate, alongside adjustments to meetings and communication [&lt;span&gt;2&lt;/span&gt;]. These existing recommendations provide a foundation for evaluating whether flexibility preserves influence.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;We propose evaluating participation trajectories, not only the experiences of established panel members. With proportionate consent and privacy safeguards, developers could record invitations, acceptance, temporary pauses, re-entry and chosen contribution formats. Reasons for declining or pausing should be optional; collecting these data should not require disclosure of a psychiatric diagnosis. These observations would describe where access is lost, without treating every absence as disengagement or claiming that a small panel statistically represents all affected people.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Before finalising a recommendation, panels could offer a time-limited opportunity for written, recorded or supported verbal input from members unable to attend the relevant meeting. An agreed return process should explain decisions already made and identify decisions still open to influence. A brief contribution-to-decision record could show whether an issue changed the scope, outcome selection, recommendation wording, or implementation advice, or explain why no change followed. This is not a requirement to accept every suggestion. It makes consideration visible without equating continuous attendance with influence. Reporting should minimise identifiable information and avoid turning support into attendance surveillance.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;A parallel-group guideline study found differences in patient-relevant topics and outcomes despite substantial overlap between groups' proposed questions [&lt;span&gt;3&lt;/span&gt;]. The WHO meaningful-engagement framework likewise advocates co-creating policies and services with people with lived experience [&lt;span&gt;4&lt;/span&gt;]. Together, these perspectives support a testable ex","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"3 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13618922/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"149077122","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Comment on ‘The Values and Preferences of People Living With Motor Neurone Disease (MND): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis’","authors":"Rachna Rohtagi,&nbsp;Parag Jayant Ratnakar,&nbsp;Deepti M. Sati,&nbsp;Hariharan Srinivasan","doi":"10.1002/gin2.70088","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.70088","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;Barker et al. systematic review with meta-analysis provides a valuable synthesis of outcomes that matter to people living with motor neurone disease (MND) [&lt;span&gt;1&lt;/span&gt;]. Before these findings are used to prioritise outcomes for the Australian MND Guideline, however, two linked issues merit clarification: whether all included measures capture values and preferences, and which synthesis model underlies the stage-specific utility estimates.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Under the GRADE framework, values and preferences refer to the relative importance people place on health outcomes [&lt;span&gt;2, 3&lt;/span&gt;]. Several conclusions in the review, however, are derived from ALS-specific quality-of-life symptom scores reported by Raheja et al. [&lt;span&gt;4&lt;/span&gt;]. In that source study, each symptom was scored from 0 (no problem) to 10 (a tremendous problem), quantifying perceived symptom burden over time rather than choices, trade-offs, rankings or utility valuations. Interpreting changes in eating, mucus, bowel and bladder, sleep or other problem scores as preferences for interventions risks conflating burden with priority. A highly troublesome symptom may not be prioritised when survival, communication, autonomy, adverse effects and treatment burden compete, and the converse is also possible.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The King's-stage analysis also requires reconciliation. The Results text reports broad stage-specific intervals, including a stage 4 estimate of 0.31 (95% CI −0.07 to 0.69), whereas Table 1 and Figure 2 report 0.40 (95% CI 0.36 to 0.44). The methods specify fixed-effect models when three or fewer studies contribute, but the Figure 2 caption describes a random-effects model; only two studies contributed. These differences are consequential: one estimate is highly uncertain and includes health states valued below death, while the other appears precise. The statement that sensitivity models produced no important difference, therefore, needs explanation and explicit identification of the primary analysis.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;A constructive refinement would stratify the evidence by elicitation construct: preference-based utility and direct-choice or ranking methods; symptom-burden or problematicness scores; and generic or disease-specific health-status measures. Guideline judgments about outcome importance should rely principally on construct-valid preference evidence, while burden measures can provide complementary context. For King's staging, fixed- and random-effects estimates should be shown side by side, the primary model and variance assumptions identified and model-dependent uncertainty reflected in the GRADE assessment. These clarifications would strengthen the review's contribution and make its evidence more interpretable for patient-centred outcome selection.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Rachna Rohtagi:&lt;/b&gt; conceptualisation, investigation, funding acquisition, writing – original draft. &lt;b&gt;Parag Jayant Ratnakar:&lt;/b&gt; methodology, validation, writing – review and editing, visualisation. &lt;b&gt;Deepti M. Sati:&lt;/b&gt; softwa","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"3 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.70088","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"149048354","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Evaluating Reproductive Health Recommendations in CPGs for Sickle Cell Disease: An Umbrella Review","authors":"Lisa R. Roberts,&nbsp;Marc Julmisse,&nbsp;Safiye Sahin,&nbsp;Jan M. Nick,&nbsp;Shanalee Tamares","doi":"10.1002/gin2.70091","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.70091","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;div&gt;\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Background&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;Individuals with sickle cell disease or trait (SCD/T) face significant reproductive health risks, highlighting the need to assess the best available evidence on their reproductive health needs.&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 &lt;/section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Objectives&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;To assess the quality of SCD/T clinical practice guidelines and evaluate the key characteristics and quality of their reproductive health recommendations.&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 &lt;/section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Methods&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;This systematic review followed the JBI methodology for Umbrella Reviews. Eligible CPGs required RHRs for individuals with SCD/T. Databases included PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane, Embase, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and registries, for CPGs in March 2025 without language restriction. Screening followed a three-step process with two independent reviewers. Risk of bias was assessed using AGREE-II and AGREE-Rex. Data was extracted independently by two reviewers using a tool developed by the researchers. Conflicts between independent reviewers were resolved through discussion. Findings were synthesized using descriptive analyses, frequency tables, and narrative summaries. One deviation from the protocol is documented in the final review.&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 &lt;/section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Results&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;Fifteen CPGs published between 2020 and 2025 were included, most of which were national-level and peer-reviewed. AGREE II scores ranged from 48% to 97%, with Applicability scoring lowest and six CPGs recommended for use without modification. Across the guidelines, 198 reproductive health recommendations were identified. Most recommendations focused on antenatal, intrapartum, and postnatal care (64.7%) and management-related care stages (62.1%). Safe abortion care appeared in only one guideline. Although nine CPGs used GRADE, many did not clearly report recommendation strength or evidence certainty. AGREE-REX identified seven CPGs as suitable for use without modification, with Values and Preferences scoring lowest. Inter-rater reliability was high for both tools.&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 &lt;/section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Conclusions&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;These findings highlight the need for more comprehensive, evidence-based, and patient-centered guidelines and recommendations to support high-quality reproductive healthcare for individuals with SCD.&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 &lt;/section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Umbrella Review Registration Number&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;The protoc","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"3 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.70091","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"149048355","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A Guide for the Inclusion of Sex and Gender Considerations in Clinical Practice Guidelines","authors":"Tania King,&nbsp;Jennifer Ervin,&nbsp;Marya Yenita Sitohang,&nbsp;Kim Dalziel,&nbsp;Michelle Tew,&nbsp;Cara Tannenbaum,&nbsp;Humaira Maheen","doi":"10.1002/gin2.70087","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.70087","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Despite increasing understanding of sex and gender as important determinants of health, there has been a lack of consideration regarding sex, gender, and other intersectional factors in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to date, and little support for guideline developers to address these shortcomings. The development of a guide for guideline developers to facilitate the systematic uptake of sex and gender considerations may enhance the uptake and consistency of sex and gender considerations in CPGs. Informed by a comprehensive programme of work that included an umbrella review of the global literature, extensive expert consultation and input from individuals with living experience, the resultant guide provides practical step-by-step strategies for CPG developers to systematically integrate sex and gender considerations throughout the guideline development process. Aligning with key global guideline development steps, this guide addresses an important clinical need to translate sex and gender-specific evidence into tailored clinical action, where relevant, and provides recommended pathways to improve guideline quality and equity. The integration of sex and gender into CPGs is a global imperative, and whilst acknowledging that guidelines are developed and disseminated differently across different countries and contexts, this guide has international relevance.</p>","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"3 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.70087","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148943247","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Response to: Comment on ‘The Values and Preferences of People Living With Motor Neurone Disease (MND): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis’","authors":"Timothy Hugh Barker,&nbsp;Cindy Stern,&nbsp;Camille Schubert,&nbsp;Steve Vucic,&nbsp;Zachary Munn","doi":"10.1002/gin2.70089","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.70089","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;We thank Rohtagi et al. [&lt;span&gt;1&lt;/span&gt;] for their close reading of our systematic review [&lt;span&gt;2&lt;/span&gt;] and for highlighting the importance of synthesising evidence related to values and preferences for informing guideline recommendations. We also thank the authors for raising three main points that we respond to below. We are grateful to the authors for prompting reflection on these issues reported in their letter [&lt;span&gt;1&lt;/span&gt;] and for the opportunity to address them via this letter.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;We fundamentally agree with Rohtagi et al. [&lt;span&gt;1&lt;/span&gt;] that GRADE defines values and preferences based on the relative importance people place on outcomes [&lt;span&gt;3, 4&lt;/span&gt;], and simply rating the current burden of a symptom doesn't constitute a true choice, trade-off, ranking or utility valuation. In the included study in question [&lt;span&gt;5&lt;/span&gt;], participants rated the burden of 10 symptoms from 0 (no problem) to 10 (tremendous problem). As Rohtagi et al. [&lt;span&gt;1&lt;/span&gt;] correctly point out, a symptom's burden and its relative importance as a prioritised outcome can diverge.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;However, we included these data because GRADE judgements aren't just about identifying which outcomes matter; they are also concerned about the value placed on a change in an outcome. We reasoned that how problematic a patient finds a symptom serves as an, admittedly indirect, indicator of where people living with MND would most value an improvement. The study was eligible under the fourth of our four pre-specified quantitative study categories, other quantitative methodology assessing outcome importance, which we derived from Zhang et al. [&lt;span&gt;4&lt;/span&gt;] and registered a priori [&lt;span&gt;6&lt;/span&gt;]. We continue to regard its inclusion as appropriate.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;However, from a perspective of prioritising the most critical outcomes or determining the utility of outcomes, we agree with the views of Rohtagi et al. [&lt;span&gt;1&lt;/span&gt;]. This could be addressed by rating this information down due to indirectness in our certainty assessments. Three outcomes were informed solely by Raheja et al. [&lt;span&gt;5&lt;/span&gt;], eating, mucus and bowel and bladder, and each was rated high certainty without a downgrade for indirectness from the perspective of rating the burden of symptoms. Other groups building on this work may nonetheless make their own decisions regarding whether this represents a form of indirectness that requires downgrading of the certainty of the evidence.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;We also noted an error in Supplementary Material 7, where we have mistakenly described the direction of the ALSSQoL response scale in reverse. The extracted values are correct as reported, but the accompanying description should read 0 (no problem) to 10 (tremendous problem). Since these data were synthesised narratively and were never combined with data from any other study, no summary estimate is affected, and no changes are needed in the main document.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Rohtagi et al. [&lt;span&gt;1&lt;/span&gt;] are correct that our resul","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"3 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.70089","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148942615","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Planning a Clinical Practice Guideline Revision for a Core Set of Outcome Measures in Adults Undergoing Neurologic Physical Therapy, Part 2: Determining Stakeholders' Uptake and Recommendations","authors":"Jane E. Sullivan,&nbsp;Kirsten Potter,&nbsp;Marghuretta Bland,&nbsp;Elizabeth Anderl,&nbsp;Wendy Romney,&nbsp;Zeynep Gulen Erkoc,&nbsp;Jennifer L. Moore","doi":"10.1002/gin2.70085","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.70085","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;div&gt;\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Objective&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;To determine the uptake and recommendations for revision of the 2018 Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG): Core Set Outcome Measures for Adults with Neurologic Conditions Undergoing Rehabilitation.&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 &lt;/section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Design&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;Online Survey.&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 &lt;/section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Setting&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;Online with participants from multiple settings.&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 &lt;/section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Participants&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;Licensed physical therapists (PT) or physical therapist assistants (PTA) or a non-PT supervisor of PTs and/or PTAs.&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 &lt;/section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Interventions&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;N/A.&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 &lt;/section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Main Outcome Measures&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;An online survey was developed to determine respondents' knowledge, perceived benefits, challenges, gaps, and modifications made to the 2018 CPG as well as to ascertain respondents' recommendations for the CPG revision. Data were analyzed descriptively by respondent role (clinician, educator/researcher, or supervisor/manager). Respondents' narrative comments were coded into 3 categories: implementation challenges, modifications, and revision recommendations.&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 &lt;/section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Results&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;Four hundred and ninety-seven individuals accessed the survey. Seventy-six percent (379) completed 80% of items. Two hundred and forty-one (63.5%) identified their primary role as clinician. The majority (99%) agreed they understood the purpose, process and recommendations of the CPG; 70% agreed that the CPG changed their practice. More than 70% agreed the CPG-recommended Core Set provided a comprehensive assessment of balance and gait. Narrative comments revealed implementation challenges including lack of time, space and buy-in. Clinicians made modifications to the Core Set including using fewer measures, adding other measures and modifying measures (e.g. changing distances, providing patient assistance). Suggestions for the CPG revision included adding higher and lower-level measures.&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 &lt;/section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Conclusions&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;Despite reported barriers to clinical implementation of CPGs, survey respondents overwhelmingly reported gaining knowledge and changing practice in respons","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"3 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.70085","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148942339","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Planning a Clinical Practice Guideline Revision for a Core Set of Outcome Measures in Adults Undergoing Neurologic Physical Therapy, Part 1: Assessing Dissemination and Scholarly Uptake","authors":"Jennifer L. Moore,&nbsp;Jane E. Sullivan,&nbsp;Marghuretta Bland,&nbsp;Wendy Romney,&nbsp;Elizabeth Anderl,&nbsp;Zeynep Gulen Erkoc,&nbsp;Kirsten Potter","doi":"10.1002/gin2.70086","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.70086","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) facilitate evidence-based decision-making and standardising care, yet their dissemination and scholarly uptake vary widely. The Core Set of Outcome Measures for Adults With Neurologic Conditions Undergoing Rehabilitation CPG (Core Set) has been broadly referenced within neurologic physical therapy. As the next revision approaches, understanding its scholarly influence, citation patterns, and published feedback is essential. This study evaluated the dissemination and use of the Core Set across the peer-reviewed literature and identified areas for refinement.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>A medical librarian conducted comprehensive searches of Web of Science, CINAHL, and Scopus to identify peer-reviewed English-language articles citing the Core Set between July 1, 2018, and July 31, 2024. Reviewer pairs screened articles and extracted publication characteristics, citation context using an adapted Rabin et al. and Field et al. framework, and narrative feedback. Quantitative data were summarised descriptively. Constructive and positive feedback were thematically coded. Altmetric Attention Score, PlumX captures, and Mendeley readership data characterised broader dissemination and engagement.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Of 388 records, 176 articles met inclusion criteria. Most articles cited the Core Set once (<i>n</i> = 106), most frequently in the introduction (<i>n</i> = 70) or methods (<i>n</i> = 65). Thirty-two percent (<i>n</i> = 57) reported that the Core Set informed study design, guided outcome measure selection, or was implemented in practice. Studies represented 30 countries, with the United States contributing the largest proportion (<i>n</i> = 104). Constructive feedback (14 articles) highlighted needs related to standardisation procedures, diagnosis-specific applicability, construct coverage, and feasibility. Positive feedback (9 articles) emphasised methodological clarity, usability, and clinical value. Dissemination indicators demonstrated broad engagement, including an Altmetric Attention Score of 60, 261 scholarly citations, 643 PlumX captures, and 604 Mendeley readers.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Discussion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Findings support maintaining the Core Set's methodological rigour while providing some suggestions for improvement.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"3 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.70086","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148942321","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Guidelines International Network Public Toolkit: Supporting Guideline Developers to Implement Best-Practice for Patient and Public Involvement","authors":"Sarah Scott,&nbsp;Anneliese Synnot,&nbsp;Karen Graham,&nbsp;Lyubov Lytvyn,&nbsp;Dawid Pieper,&nbsp;Mark Rasburn,&nbsp;The GIN Public Working Group","doi":"10.1002/gin2.70084","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.70084","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Patient and public involvement (PPI) is increasingly recognised as essential to the development of trustworthy and relevant clinical guidelines. However, guideline developers face persistent challenges in implementing best-practice PPI, including developing an appropriate PPI strategy, recruiting and supporting patients, and including diverse perspectives. The Guidelines International Network (GIN) Public Working Group developed the GIN Public Toolkit to address these challenges and support meaningful involvement across the guideline development lifecycle. This commentary outlines the Toolkit's background, purpose, structure, global impact and future directions. Freely available online, the Toolkit provides practical guidance and case examples based on the experiences of guideline developers around the world. Since its launch in 2015, the Toolkit has evolved to include 10 chapters delivered via dual-format: e-print and a website. Website analytics and citation data indicate the Toolkit's growing global reach, supported by the ongoing chapter translations, training and dissemination activities. The Toolkit's vision is to remain a living resource that is shaped by collaboration and is responsive to guideline developer's needs. Future directions include increasing the Toolkit's accessibility through further translations, refining citation practices and targeted promotion and dissemination strategies. The GIN Public Toolkit continues to build global capacity for meaningful PPI in guideline development.</p>","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"3 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.70084","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148849034","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}