Development of rapid guidelines: 2. A qualitative study with WHO guideline developers

Abstract Background Situations such as public health emergencies and outbreaks necessitate the development and publication of high-quality recommendations within a condensed timeframe. For example, WHO has produced examples of and guidance for the development of rapid guidelines (RGs). However, more...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Ivan D. Florez, Rebecca L. Morgan, Maicon Falavigna, Sérgio C. Kowalski, Yuan Zhang, Itziar Etxeandia-Ikobaltzeta, Nancy Santesso, Wojtek Wiercioch, Holger J. Schünemann
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2018-07-01
Series:Health Research Policy and Systems
Subjects:
Online Access:http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12961-018-0329-6
_version_ 1828766559054594048
author Ivan D. Florez
Rebecca L. Morgan
Maicon Falavigna
Sérgio C. Kowalski
Yuan Zhang
Itziar Etxeandia-Ikobaltzeta
Nancy Santesso
Wojtek Wiercioch
Holger J. Schünemann
author_facet Ivan D. Florez
Rebecca L. Morgan
Maicon Falavigna
Sérgio C. Kowalski
Yuan Zhang
Itziar Etxeandia-Ikobaltzeta
Nancy Santesso
Wojtek Wiercioch
Holger J. Schünemann
author_sort Ivan D. Florez
collection DOAJ
description Abstract Background Situations such as public health emergencies and outbreaks necessitate the development and publication of high-quality recommendations within a condensed timeframe. For example, WHO has produced examples of and guidance for the development of rapid guidelines (RGs). However, more information is needed to understand the experiences and perceptions of guideline developers. This is the second of a series of three articles addressing methodological issues around RGs. This study describes the perceptions and experiences of guideline developers at WHO about RGs. Methods We conducted interviews consisting of open- and closed-ended questions with guideline developers at WHO. Our analysis described the definition and rationale of RGs, the differences from regular guidelines with regard to timelines from topic definition until publication, barriers to identifying the evidence and the lack of a standard methodology to develop RGs. Results We interviewed 10 participants, the majority of whom were comfortable with the current WHO definition of RGs. Most stated that the rationale for developing RGs should be in response to new evidence about efficacy, cost-effectiveness or safety. Respondents differed with regards to the amount of time RGs should take. While the majority of participants agreed that guidelines should be based on a systematic review, this step in the process was considered the most time and resource intensive. Challenges for developing RGs included limited personnel and financial resources as well as the lack of evidence. Facilitators, in turn, that may improve RG development include additional financial and personnel resources as well as the use of virtual meetings. Conclusions While our study suggests a strong need and rationale for the development of RGs, standardisation of timelines and guidance on panel composition, peer-review process, conduct of meetings and sources of permissible evidence require further research.
first_indexed 2024-12-11T07:10:13Z
format Article
id doaj.art-478d8a642bcd4ff5b0d41aad95a61b33
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 1478-4505
language English
last_indexed 2024-12-11T07:10:13Z
publishDate 2018-07-01
publisher BMC
record_format Article
series Health Research Policy and Systems
spelling doaj.art-478d8a642bcd4ff5b0d41aad95a61b332022-12-22T01:16:23ZengBMCHealth Research Policy and Systems1478-45052018-07-011611910.1186/s12961-018-0329-6Development of rapid guidelines: 2. A qualitative study with WHO guideline developersIvan D. Florez0Rebecca L. Morgan1Maicon Falavigna2Sérgio C. Kowalski3Yuan Zhang4Itziar Etxeandia-Ikobaltzeta5Nancy Santesso6Wojtek Wiercioch7Holger J. Schünemann8Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact and Mac GRADE Center, McMaster University Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C16Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact and Mac GRADE Center, McMaster University Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C16Hospital Moinhos de VentoDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact and Mac GRADE Center, McMaster University Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C16Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact and Mac GRADE Center, McMaster University Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C16Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact and Mac GRADE Center, McMaster University Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C16Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact and Mac GRADE Center, McMaster University Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C16Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact and Mac GRADE Center, McMaster University Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C16Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact and Mac GRADE Center, McMaster University Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C16Abstract Background Situations such as public health emergencies and outbreaks necessitate the development and publication of high-quality recommendations within a condensed timeframe. For example, WHO has produced examples of and guidance for the development of rapid guidelines (RGs). However, more information is needed to understand the experiences and perceptions of guideline developers. This is the second of a series of three articles addressing methodological issues around RGs. This study describes the perceptions and experiences of guideline developers at WHO about RGs. Methods We conducted interviews consisting of open- and closed-ended questions with guideline developers at WHO. Our analysis described the definition and rationale of RGs, the differences from regular guidelines with regard to timelines from topic definition until publication, barriers to identifying the evidence and the lack of a standard methodology to develop RGs. Results We interviewed 10 participants, the majority of whom were comfortable with the current WHO definition of RGs. Most stated that the rationale for developing RGs should be in response to new evidence about efficacy, cost-effectiveness or safety. Respondents differed with regards to the amount of time RGs should take. While the majority of participants agreed that guidelines should be based on a systematic review, this step in the process was considered the most time and resource intensive. Challenges for developing RGs included limited personnel and financial resources as well as the lack of evidence. Facilitators, in turn, that may improve RG development include additional financial and personnel resources as well as the use of virtual meetings. Conclusions While our study suggests a strong need and rationale for the development of RGs, standardisation of timelines and guidance on panel composition, peer-review process, conduct of meetings and sources of permissible evidence require further research.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12961-018-0329-6GuidelineEmergenciesMethodologyRapid reviewsGuideline developmentClinical guidelines
spellingShingle Ivan D. Florez
Rebecca L. Morgan
Maicon Falavigna
Sérgio C. Kowalski
Yuan Zhang
Itziar Etxeandia-Ikobaltzeta
Nancy Santesso
Wojtek Wiercioch
Holger J. Schünemann
Development of rapid guidelines: 2. A qualitative study with WHO guideline developers
Health Research Policy and Systems
Guideline
Emergencies
Methodology
Rapid reviews
Guideline development
Clinical guidelines
title Development of rapid guidelines: 2. A qualitative study with WHO guideline developers
title_full Development of rapid guidelines: 2. A qualitative study with WHO guideline developers
title_fullStr Development of rapid guidelines: 2. A qualitative study with WHO guideline developers
title_full_unstemmed Development of rapid guidelines: 2. A qualitative study with WHO guideline developers
title_short Development of rapid guidelines: 2. A qualitative study with WHO guideline developers
title_sort development of rapid guidelines 2 a qualitative study with who guideline developers
topic Guideline
Emergencies
Methodology
Rapid reviews
Guideline development
Clinical guidelines
url http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12961-018-0329-6
work_keys_str_mv AT ivandflorez developmentofrapidguidelines2aqualitativestudywithwhoguidelinedevelopers
AT rebeccalmorgan developmentofrapidguidelines2aqualitativestudywithwhoguidelinedevelopers
AT maiconfalavigna developmentofrapidguidelines2aqualitativestudywithwhoguidelinedevelopers
AT sergiockowalski developmentofrapidguidelines2aqualitativestudywithwhoguidelinedevelopers
AT yuanzhang developmentofrapidguidelines2aqualitativestudywithwhoguidelinedevelopers
AT itziaretxeandiaikobaltzeta developmentofrapidguidelines2aqualitativestudywithwhoguidelinedevelopers
AT nancysantesso developmentofrapidguidelines2aqualitativestudywithwhoguidelinedevelopers
AT wojtekwiercioch developmentofrapidguidelines2aqualitativestudywithwhoguidelinedevelopers
AT holgerjschunemann developmentofrapidguidelines2aqualitativestudywithwhoguidelinedevelopers