Clinical and Public Health Guidelines最新文献

{"title":"Awareness of adapting clinical practice guidelines to a local context","authors":"Dawid Pieper,&nbsp;Eva-Maria Behnke,&nbsp;Rieke Dumke,&nbsp;Christel Kehr-Fuckel,&nbsp;Carolin Radow,&nbsp;Nils Schulze,&nbsp;Markus Follmann,&nbsp;Corinna Schaefer,&nbsp;Robert Prill,&nbsp;Christian Kopkow,&nbsp;Carolin Bahns,&nbsp;Kyung-Eun (Anna) Choi,&nbsp;Lena Fischer","doi":"10.1002/gin2.70025","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.70025","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Guideline recommendations are often not implemented in practice. This can be attributed to factors such as patient preferences and characteristics, structural conditions, personnel or other resources, as well as cultural or ethical aspects. Adaptations to the local context (e.g., regional or hospital) result in so-called locally adapted guidelines (LAGL), which could improve implementation. We aimed to assess the awareness of LAGL among guideline developers in Germany.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>An online survey was conducted via LimeSurvey in May 2024. The questionnaire, designed based on literature and expert opinions, consisted of 23 items, predominantly with dichotomous response options. Recruitment was conducted via email. Direct contact addresses were identified using the German guideline registry (<i>n</i> = 397). Additionally, a mailing list distribution was conducted through the guidelines working group of the German Network for Evidence-Based Medicine (<i>n</i> = 316). Only fully completed questionnaires were included in the analysis. Data cleaning and descriptive analysis were performed using Excel.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>A total of 63 questionnaires were fully completed. The most represented groups were physicians (65%) and methodologists (24%), most frequently in coordination (76%) or as group members (62%). The most judicious reasons for developing a LAGL were differences in patient populations (48%), currency of recommendations (46%), and patient values and preferences (44%). The most commonly cited likely reasons for developing a LAGL were economic considerations (32%), differences in patient populations (30%), and currency of recommendations (30%). Many respondents (59%) were aware of the possibility of adapting existing guidelines to the local context. Among these, approximately half (49%) had already locally adapted a guideline, with 75% using an adaptation framework.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Discussion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>LAGLs are known among guideline developers in Germany and are generally developed using adaptation frameworks. Potential reasons for preparing LAGLs are diverse, with some discrepancies between perceived valid and likely reasons.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"2 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.70025","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143908974","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":"Development of computable guidelines: GIN McMaster guideline development checklist extension for computable guidelines","authors":"Chirine Chehab,&nbsp;Stacy Lathrop,&nbsp;Christopher G. Harrod,&nbsp;James Kariuki,&nbsp;Derek Ritz,&nbsp;Maria Michaels","doi":"10.1002/gin2.70023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.70023","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Transforming Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG) recommendations into computer readable language is a complex and ongoing process that requires significant resources, including time, expertise, and funds. The objective is to provide an extension of the widely used GIN-McMaster Guideline Development Checklist (GDC) and Tool for the development of computable guidelines (CGs).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Based on an outcome from the Human Centered Design (HCD) workshop hosted by the Guidelines International Network North America (GIN-NA), a team was formed to develop the checklist extension. The team included guideline developers, researchers, implementers, and informaticists who reviewed the GDC and developed a list of additional requirements to help guideline developers author clearer, more implementable narrative guideline recommendations (referred to as knowledge level 1, or L1 recommendations) and ensure conformance-testable attributes of the different artifacts of clinical guideline recommendations. The team vetted this list with guideline development organizations and health informatics experts to validate it, for clarity, usability, and effectiveness. The team used an iterative process to determine the final extension components for CG development guidance.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The team identified nine components that complement the topics included in GDC for developing, implementing, and adopting CG recommendations.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This study demonstrates that the defined principles in the L1 Checklist, grounded in current guideline development standards, may significantly enhance the writing, development, and implementation of computable recommendations. Collaboration among guideline developers, implementers, and informaticists from the outset is crucial for achieving effective integration of these guidelines into clinical workflows. Future work should focus on assessing this extension within various ongoing learning initiatives and point-of-care digitization efforts, including the scholarly communications ecosystem and learning health systems, to further improve healthcare delivery.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"2 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.70023","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143896987","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":"Advancing health equity in the guideline enterprise","authors":"Andrea J. Darzi,&nbsp;Tamara Lotfi,&nbsp;Kian Torabiardakani","doi":"10.1002/gin2.70024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.70024","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;Clinical and public health guidelines aim to provide evidence-based recommendations for key practice questions. By adopting an equity lens, guidelines can help reduce unjust or avoidable disparities in achieving optimal health outcomes. In line with this mandate, we highlight two key commentaries that offer globally relevant lessons for advancing equity in the guideline enterprise.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In their contribution, Dewidar and colleagues underscore two central messages including the risks of neglecting equity considerations in guidelines and the transformative impact of addressing it meaningfully.&lt;span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt; They illustrate how the routine exclusion or marginal consideration of equity can lead to unintended consequences and perpetuate injustices in healthcare recommendations. For example, they discuss how earlier guidelines for leprosy, which failed to consider equity and human right concepts, led to harmful policies such as involuntary isolation resulting in stigma, poor outcomes, and systemic discrimination. In contrast, more recent guidelines have taken a rights-based and equity-oriented approach, emphasizing community integration, early diagnosis, and social inclusion through community-based care and education. The authors showcase several WHO guidelines that effectively integrate equity principles to improve care for underserved populations such as the nonsurgical management of chronic primary low back pain which emphasizes accessibility for older adults through assistive products and infrastructure adaptations. Collectively, these examples demonstrate how equity-informed guidelines can reduce disease burden, enhance access, and improve health outcomes for vulnerable groups. Dewidar and colleagues conclude by calling for scalable methods to support equity integration in guidelines in ways that adapt to different resource levels and evolving evidence.&lt;span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In a complementary commentary, Persaud emphasizes that guidelines can either champion or inadvertently undermine health equity, depending on how deliberately equity is embedded.&lt;span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt; While equity is often mentioned in passing within introductions or methods sections, it is too rarely reflected in the recommendations themselves. Persaud's commentary illustrates how such omissions can perpetuate disparities, especially when guidelines fail to prioritize interventions for disadvantaged communities or ignore settings where structural failures exist. An example of this is in emergency departments, where a lack of formal follow-up plan can turn short-term opioid prescriptions into long-term misuse, particularly among patients who have limited access to primary care. By contrast, guidelines that deliberately incorporate equity, through methods such as inclusive panel recruitment, robust data collection on diverse populations, and targeted recommendations, help ensure that benefits reach those most in need. For instance, HPV self-staffing al","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"2 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-04-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.70024","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143827046","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 cross-sectional review of policies on conflicts of interest and funding in the development manuals of practice guidelines","authors":"Yangqin Xun,&nbsp;Qiangqiang Guo,&nbsp;Zijun Wang,&nbsp;Akihiko Ozaki,&nbsp;Ying Zhu,&nbsp;Nan Yang,&nbsp;Yajia Sun,&nbsp;Shouyuan Wu,&nbsp;Mengjuan Ren,&nbsp;Ping Wang,&nbsp;Hui Liu,&nbsp;Hui Lan,&nbsp;Yunlan Liu,&nbsp;Qianling Shi,&nbsp;Susan L. Norris,&nbsp;Ivan D. Florez,&nbsp;Joseph L. Mathew,&nbsp;Myeong Soo Lee,&nbsp;Yaolong Chen,&nbsp;Janne Estill","doi":"10.1002/gin2.70020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.70020","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Importance</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Policies on conflicts of interest (COI) and funding are essential to reduce the risk of bias in the guideline development process.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objective</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To collate and review the content related to COI and funding policies from guideline development handbooks.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Study design and setting</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We searched PubMed from its inception until September 10, 2021, websites of key guideline development organizations and Google for guideline development manuals that included COI or funding policies, and performed a cross-sectional review.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Fifty-seven guideline development manuals were included. Amongst the 54 handbooks containing a COI policy, all required disclosure of interests. Nineteen (35.2%) manuals defined what constitutes a COI, and 52 (96.3%) specified who should disclose their interests. Thirty-four (63.0%) manuals recommended an assessment of disclosed interests to determine whether a COI existed, and all of these specified who should perform this review. Thirty-five (64.8%) manuals addressed the management of COI, of which 26 (74.3%) indicated who should manage COI and 29 (82.9%) reported specific management measures. Twenty-eight (51.8%) manuals addressed the publication of COI, all recommending that these be publicly accessible. Of the 28 manuals that provided guidance on funding, eight (28.6%) required reporting of funding sources; 14 (50.0%) required that the guideline authors state that the funders' perspectives and interests did not affect the final recommendations; eight (28.6%) specified which kind of funding the guidelines should not accept; and five (17.9%) recommended that the role of funders be restricted.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Policies in guideline manuals report a variety of different elements related to COI and funding. However, a considerable part of the policies did not report precisely what constitutes a COI, the key steps for COI management, or address the sources, influence and acceptability of funding.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"2 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.70020","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143809830","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":"Brief report of a pilot test of an audit tool for assurance of Declarations of Interest policy in NICE COVID-19 guidance production","authors":"Harriet Edmondson,&nbsp;Hannah Patrick,&nbsp;Sarah Boyce,&nbsp;Margaret McCartney,&nbsp;Anneka Patel,&nbsp;Maria Majeed,&nbsp;Susan Bewley,&nbsp;Kevin Harris","doi":"10.1002/gin2.70007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.70007","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;div&gt;\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Introduction&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) UK helps practitioners and commissioners to achieve high-quality, cost-effective patient care by publishing relevant evidence-based recommendations, including guidelines. These are developed by NICE advisory committees comprising health and care professionals, service users, and their carers. To ensure NICE's independence it has a comprehensive policy on declaring and managing interests for advisory committees. The application of the policy is not straightforward and the aim of this work was to pilot test an audit tool for external assurance of self-declared interests; and to produce methodology with wider applicability for other research and guideline-producing organisations.&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;A pilot study of adherence to the NICE DOI policy was undertaken. The number and type of DOIs made by the 48 panel members developing the NG191 Managing COVID-19 guideline was assessed, using multiple external sources to check for undeclared interests. DOIs were reviewed from a 6-month period at the height of activity (1 March–31 August 2021). DOIs were checked by assessors (experienced NICE staff involved in application of the DOI policy) against a comprehensive search strategy including multiple public sources (PubMed, Google Scholar, Disclosure, etc.) of information for undisclosed DOIs over the 12 months preceding the member's contribution and the 12 months during which they contributed.&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;There was a total of 126 unique self-declared interests during the 6-month time period and we found a further 280 undeclared interests. Of these 280, 75 were deemed likely to be relevant (27%) but only 10 (4%), would have led to a request for more information from the panel member had it been declared (according to DOI policy version 1.4 in place at that time). The team considered that 7 of the undeclared interests would have led to exclusion from decision-making had they been known (3% of the undeclared interests). All related to academic output.&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 &lt;/section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Discussion&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;This pilot provided useful insight into NICE DOI policy compliance. The methodology needs further testing and development for wider, routine contexts. A digital version of the audit tool would enable routine, more efficient audit of declarations of interest. This study was an important quality assurance exercise from which we have been able to propose methodology that can be automated and widely adopted.&lt;/","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"2 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.70007","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143809509","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":"Clinical practice guideline protocol for perioperative glycemic control in diabetic and nondiabetic adults undergoing noncardiac surgery","authors":"Fabricio Andres Lasso Andrade,&nbsp;Nubia Fernanda Sanchez Bello,&nbsp;Jose Hugo Arias Botero,&nbsp;Jaddy Sandrey Bedoya,&nbsp;Luz Maria Gomez Buitrago,&nbsp;Alexandra Chaves Vega,&nbsp;Fernando Ríos Barbosa","doi":"10.1002/gin2.70019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.70019","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Type II diabetes mellitus (DM II) is a chronic and prevalent disease affecting millions of people worldwide, with a significant impact on public health. This protocol outlines the methodology for developing a Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG) focused on managing glycemic control in diabetic and nondiabetic adults undergoing noncardiac surgery. The objective of this guideline is to provide recommendations based on the best available evidence, improving the quality of care and clinical outcomes for these patients.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The CPG will be developed using the GRADE methodology, a rigorous and transparent approach that allows for the evaluation of evidence quality and the formulation of robust recommendations. The process will include identifying critical clinical questions using the PECOT format, ensuring a comprehensive evaluation of perioperative glycemic management.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Questions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The clinical questions addressed in this CPG cover key aspects of perioperative glycemic management, from defining preoperative hyperglycemia to strategies for intraoperative and postoperative monitoring. These questions were prioritized through a modified Delphi process, ensuring their clinical relevance.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"2 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.70019","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143778186","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":"Comparison between two tools assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews: ReMarQ and AMSTAR 2","authors":"Manuel Marques-Cruz,&nbsp;Paula Perestrelo,&nbsp;Alexandro W. L. Chu,&nbsp;Sara Gil-Mata,&nbsp;Pau Riera-Serra,&nbsp;Bernardo Sousa-Pinto","doi":"10.1002/gin2.70021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.70021","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Several tools are available for assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews. The ReMarQ tool – centred on the assessment of the reporting methodological quality of systematic reviews – comprises 26 dichotomous items and does not require clinical or background knowledge of the review topic for its application. In this study, we aimed to compare the results of evaluating the methodological quality of systematic reviews using ReMarQ and A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2. We assessed a sample of randomly selected systematic reviews published in medical journals using ReMarQ and AMSTAR 2. We calculated the correlation and agreement between the number of fulfilled items in ReMarQ and the number of (i) fulfilled and (ii) fulfilled or partially fulfilled items according to AMSTAR 2. We assessed 51 systematic reviews using both tools. The number of fulfilled items in ReMarQ was strongly correlated with the number of fulfilled items (<span></span><math></math> = 0.79; 95%CI = 0.65;0.87) and the number of fulfilled or partially fulfilled items (<span></span><math></math> = 0.85; 95%CI = 0.74;0.90) in AMSTAR 2. The percentage of fulfilled ReMarQ items displayed a high agreement with the percentage of fulfilled or partially fulfilled AMSTAR items. In conclusion, the number of fulfilled items in ReMarQ is strongly correlated with that in AMSTAR 2 and there is good agreement between these two tools on the percentage of fulfilled items.</p>","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"2 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.70021","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143726795","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":"Clinical practice guideline recommendations can promote or undermine health equity","authors":"Nav Persaud","doi":"10.1002/gin2.70011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.70011","url":null,"abstract":"<p>While clinical practice guideline makers and methodologists signal the importance of considering inequities, recommendations often have little or nothing to do with fairness. Since inequities are, by definition avoidable, guidance on clinical practice is a prime opportunity to make health care more fair. Equity should be a central consideration when deciding who to involve in the guideline process, the guideline's scope, the type of information to consider, how to make recommendations and how to share recommendations. Guideline producers should select topics where guidance can actually address inequities and then use information about disparities to make helpful recommendations. Funders and journal editors should insist that guidelines explain how panels were formed and why new guidance on the topic is needed. Changes to clinical practice guidelines will not be enough to promote health equity, but guidelines can be part of the solution if they are thoughtfully produced and acted on by clinicians and by governments.</p>","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"2 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.70011","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143726788","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":"Solving pain points in guideline development and implementation using human-centered design","authors":"Maria Michaels,&nbsp;Chirine Chehab,&nbsp;Mindy Hangsleben","doi":"10.1002/gin2.70014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.70014","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Guidelines International Network North America expanded on ‘Adapting Clinical Guidelines for the Digital Age’, an initiative to innovate guideline development and implementation leveraging technology. The objective: solve pain points ̶ problems occurring at different levels of the customer experience ̶ in guideline development and implementation using human-centered design (HCD). In HCD, customers are people who would use the product or system being designed and are at the center of the design process. HCD builds empathy to understand challenges facing different customers. HCD has three phases: inspiration, ideation, and implementation. <i>Inspiration phase</i>: Semi-structured interviews collected multiple perspectives within guideline development and implementation and determined key pain points (38 participants). <i>Ideation phase</i>: HCD workshop ‘Bringing Guidelines to the Digital Age’ defined design goals, determined design criteria, and developed ‘prototype’ solutions for each pain point with feasibility testing during the workshop (35 participants). <i>Implementation phase</i>: Postworkshop participants continued developing and testing solution designs, tracked progress, and created products to be further tested, iterated, or published (44 participants). Interviews revealed five pain points in implementation stemming from issues in guideline development: (1) lack of clarity of ‘how’ to apply recommendations; (2) inadequate or nonexistent feedback and testing; (3) unclear language; (4) incomplete information; and (5) lack of informatics expertise. Each workshop group produced prototypes – early models of products built to test a concept or process – that were consolidated into five solution categories and refined through post-workshop teams focusing on: (1) patient preferences in recommendations (2) real-world testing and feedback, (3) standard operating procedures for computability and better implementability, (4) artificial intelligence approaches, and (5) connecting informatics with guideline development. HCD provided a user-centered, iterative approach to design solutions leveraging technology to solve paint points and improve implementation of guidelines into patient care. This is a blueprint for using HCD in guideline development.</p>","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"2 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.70014","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143535784","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":"Dissemination strategies of clinical practice guidelines—mixed methods evidence synthesis protocol","authors":"Sumanth Kumbargere Nagraj,&nbsp;Tandekile Lubelwana Hafver,&nbsp;Ameer Hohlfeld,&nbsp;Emmanuel Effa,&nbsp;Denny Mabetha,&nbsp;Gertrude Kunje,&nbsp;Yan Jiao Shen,&nbsp;Carlos Zaror,&nbsp;Suzgika Lakudzala,&nbsp;Talitha Mpando,&nbsp;Stijn van de Velde,&nbsp;Thomas Agoritsas,&nbsp;Nicolas Delvaux,&nbsp;Per Olav Vandvik","doi":"10.1002/gin2.70012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.70012","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are shared through various dissemination strategies using a range of dissemination products and channels. However, users may have different needs for accessing and understanding them. Patients and carers from low- and middle-income countries might face challenges in accessing CPGs such as inadequate systems for printed book distribution and insufficient and substandard photocopies. Many organizations offer lengthy documents, but busy healthcare workers may prefer shorter, digital versions. Digital CPGs can be sent through different channels such as email, newsletters, or social media. How users feel about these products (e.g., clinical protocol, educational material or decision aids) and how it affects the usage of CPGs is not well understood. In addition to these issues, most of the previous systematic reviews on this topic have clubbed the dissemination strategies along with the adoption of recommendations or implementation aspects. There is a need for evidence on the existing dissemination strategies disentangled from the implementation aspects. We aim to conduct a mixed-methods systematic review to identify documented dissemination strategies for CPGs, barriers and facilitators to access such strategies and the expectations and needs of end users regarding dissemination needs. We will search literature from MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, Epistemonikos, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and Medical Guidelines Clearing house. We will critically appraise all the included studies using appropriate tools based on the study design. We will use manifest content analysis to identify documented dissemination strategies and latent content analysis to understand the barriers, facilitators, preferences of end-users. We intend to follow the convergent matrix model approach for this mixed methods evidence synthesis. We anticipate that this mixed-methods systematic review will highlight the various strategies of dissemination of CPGs and the associated barriers and facilitators.</p>","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"2 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.70012","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143362776","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}