Evaluating the process of tailoring the global HIV/AIDS practice guidelines for use in developing countries

Adapting low back pain guidelines within a multidisciplinary context: a process evaluation

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The Alberta Ambassador Program (AAP) adapted seven clinical practice guidelines on low back pain (LBP) into a single guideline spanning the continuum of care from prevention and diagnosis through to treatment. The Ambassador adaptation process was evaluated to 1 Identify the major challenges encountered and successful strategies utilized; 2 Assess strengths and weaknesses by benchmarking it with the ADAPTE framework; and 3 Identify opportunities for improvement.

METHOD

External consultants reviewed the Ambassador and ADAPTE materials and conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with 29 participants from the AAP committees. All participants were asked about the major challenges encountered and potential areas for improvement.

RESULTS

The response rate was 83% (29/35). There was strong consensus that the Ambassador guideline adaptation process was sound and rigorous all respondents indicated willingness to participate in further iterations of the Program. Key elements of success were identified. The main steps and sequence of the process were closely aligned with the ADAPTE framework, although the AAP incorporated additional enhancements which augmented the process. The main divergences between the two frameworks centred on the organizational structure and the methods used to overcome methodological difficulties.

CONCLUSION

The AAP successfully utilized existing stakeholder interest to create an overarching guideline for managing LBP across multiple primary care disciplines. The study highlighted the strengths and weaknesses of the Program, and identified practical strategies for improvement. Evaluating guideline adaptation processes is pivotal to ensuring that they continue to be an efficient, rigorous and practicable option for producing contextualized, clinically relevant guidelines.

Is increasing complexity of algorithms the price for higher accuracy? virtual comparison of three algorithms for tertiary level management of chronic cough in people living with HIV in a low-income country

Background

The algorithmic approach to guidelines has been introduced and promoted on a large scale since the 1970s. This study aims at comparing the performance of three algorithms for the management of chronic cough in patients with HIV infection, and at reassessing the current position of algorithmic guidelines in clinical decision making through an analysis of accuracy, harm and complexity.

Methods

Data were collected at the University Hospital of Kigali (CHUK) in a total of 201 HIV-positive hospitalised patients with chronic cough. We simulated management of each patient following the three algorithms. The first was locally tailored by clinicians from CHUK, the second and third were drawn from publications by Médecins sans Frontières (MSF) and the World Health Organisation (WHO). Semantic analysis techniques known as Clinical Algorithm Nosology were used to compare them in terms of complexity and similarity. For each of them, we assessed the sensitivity, delay to diagnosis and hypothetical harm of false positives and false negatives.

Results

The principal diagnoses were tuberculosis (21%) and pneumocystosis (19%). Sensitivity, representing the proportion of correct diagnoses made by each algorithm, was 95.7%, 88% and 70% for CHUK, MSF and WHO, respectively. Mean time to appropriate management was 1.86 days for CHUK and 3.46 for the MSF algorithm. The CHUK algorithm was the most complex, followed by MSF and WHO. Total harm was by far the highest for the WHO algorithm, followed by MSF and CHUK.

Conclusions

This study confirms our hypothesis that sensitivity and patient safety (i.e. less expected harm) are proportional to the complexity of algorithms, though increased complexity may make them difficult to use in practice.

Creating a multidisciplinary low back pain guideline: anatomy of a guideline adaptation process

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

A collaborative, multidisciplinary guideline adaptation process was developed to construct a single overarching, evidence-based clinical practice guideline (CPG) for all primary care practitioners responsible for the management of low back pain (LBP) to curb the use of ineffective treatments and improve patient outcomes.

METHODS

The adaptation strategy, which involved multiple committees and partnerships, leveraged existing knowledge transfer connections to recruit guideline development group (GDG) members and ensure that all stakeholders had a voice in the guideline development process. Videoconferencing was used to coordinate the large, geographically dispersed GDG. Information services and health technology assessment experts were used throughout the process to lighten the GDG's workload.

RESULTS

The GDG reviewed seven seed guidelines and drafted an Alberta-specific guideline during 10 half-day meetings over a 12-month period. The use of ad hoc subcommittees to resolve uncertainties or disagreements regarding evidence interpretation expedited the process. Challenges were encountered in dealing with subjectivity, guideline appraisal tools, evidence source limitations and inconsistencies, and the lack of sophisticated evidence analysis inherent in guideline adaptation. Strategies for overcoming these difficulties are discussed.

CONCLUSION

Guideline adaptation is useful when resources are limited and good-quality seed CPGs exist. The Ambassador Program successfully utilized existing stakeholder interest to create an overarching guideline that aligned guidance for LBP management across multiple primary care disciplines. Unforeseen challenges in guideline adaptation can be overcome with credible seed guidelines, a consistently applied and transparent methodology, and clear documentation of the subjective contextualization process. Multidisciplinary stakeholder input and an open, trusting relationship among all contributors will ensure that the end product is clinically meaningful.

Challenges in developing national HIV guidelines: experience from the eastern Mediterranean

OBJECTIVE

To appraise the process of development and clinical content of national human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) clinical practice guidelines of countries in the eastern Mediterranean and to formulate recommendations for future guideline development and adaptation.

METHODS

Twenty-three countries in the World Health Organization (WHO) Eastern Mediterranean and United Nations Children's Fund Middle East and North Africa regions were invited to submit national HIV clinical practice guidelines for review. The guideline development methodology was assessed using an adaptation of the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument and guideline content, using a checklist to evaluate concordance with WHO 2006 generic guidelines.

FINDINGS

Twelve countries submitted 20 guidelines developed between 2004 and 2009. Median scores were poor (i.e. < 0.6) for the methodological quality domains of rigour of development, stakeholder involvement and applicability and flexibility. Scores were better for the domains of scope and purpose (median: 0.82, interquartile range, IQR: 0.58-0.89) and clarity and presentation (median: 0.67, IQR: 0.50-0.78). Concerning guideline content, recommended first-line treatment and eligibility criteria for antiretroviral therapy (ART) in adults were in line with WHO recommendations in most guidelines. However, recommendations on antiretroviral prophylaxis for the prevention of vertical HIV transmission, diagnosis and treatment of HIV infection in infants, monitoring patients on ART, treatment failure and co-morbidities were often lacking.

CONCLUSION

The large majority of national HIV clinical practice guidelines had methodological weaknesses and content inaccuracies. Countries require assistance with the adaptation process to ensure that guidelines are valid and up to date and accurately reflect WHO global clinical care recommendations for patients with HIV.

The systematic guideline review: method, rationale, and test on chronic heart failure

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based guidelines have the potential to improve healthcare. However, their de-novo-development requires substantial resources -- especially for complex conditions, and adaptation may be biased by contextually influenced recommendations in source guidelines. In this paper we describe a new approach to guideline development -- the systematic guideline review method (SGR), and its application in the development of an evidence-based guideline for family physicians on chronic heart failure (CHF).

METHODS

A systematic search for guidelines was carried out. Evidence-based guidelines on CHF management in adults in ambulatory care published in English or German between the years 2000 and 2004 were included. Guidelines on acute or right heart failure were excluded. Eligibility was assessed by two reviewers, methodological quality of selected guidelines was appraised using the AGREE instrument, and a framework of relevant clinical questions for diagnostics and treatment was derived. Data were extracted into evidence tables, systematically compared by means of a consistency analysis and synthesized in a preliminary draft. Most relevant primary sources were re-assessed to verify the cited evidence. Evidence and recommendations were summarized in a draft guideline.

RESULTS

Of 16 included guidelines five were of good quality. A total of 35 recommendations were systematically compared: 25/35 were consistent, 9/35 inconsistent, and 1/35 un-rateable (derived from a single guideline). Of the 25 consistencies, 14 were based on consensus, seven on evidence and four differed in grading. Major inconsistencies were found in 3/9 of the inconsistent recommendations. We re-evaluated the evidence for 17 recommendations (evidence-based, differing evidence levels and minor inconsistencies) - the majority was congruent. Incongruity was found where the stated evidence could not be verified in the cited primary sources, or where the evaluation in the source guidelines focused on treatment benefits and underestimated the risks. The draft guideline was completed in 8.5 man-months. The main limitation to this study was the lack of a second reviewer.

CONCLUSION

The systematic guideline review including framework development, consistency analysis and validation is an effective, valid, and resource saving-approach to the development of evidence-based guidelines.

Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 13. Applicability, transferability and adaptation

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization (WHO), like many other organisations around the world, has recognised the need to use more rigorous processes to ensure that health care recommendations are informed by the best available research evidence. This is the thirteenth of a series of 16 reviews that have been prepared as background for advice from the WHO Advisory Committee on Health Research to WHO on how to achieve this.

OBJECTIVES

We reviewed the literature on applicability, transferability, and adaptation of guidelines.

METHODS

We searched five databases for existing systematic reviews and relevant primary methodological research. We reviewed the titles of all citations and retrieved abstracts and full text articles if the citations appeared relevant to the topic. We checked the reference lists of articles relevant to the questions and used snowballing as a technique to obtain additional information. We used the definition "coming from, concerning or belonging to at least two or all nations" for the term international. Our conclusions are based on the available evidence, consideration of what WHO and other organisations are doing and logical arguments.

KEY QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

We did not identify systematic reviews addressing the key questions. We found individual studies and projects published in the peer reviewed literature and on the Internet. Should WHO develop international recommendations? Resources for developing high quality recommendations are limited. Internationally developed recommendations can facilitate access to and pooling of resources, reduce unnecessary duplication, and involve international scientists. Priority should be given to international health problems and problems that are important in low and middle-income countries, where these advantages are likely to be greatest. Factors that influence the transferability of recommendations across different settings should be considered systematically and flagged, including modifying factors, important variation in needs, values, costs and the availability of resources. What should be done centrally and locally? The preparation of systematic reviews and evidence profiles should be coordinated centrally, in collaboration with organizations that produce systematic reviews. Centrally developed evidence profiles should be adaptable to specific local circumstances. Consideration should be given to models that involve central coordination with work being undertaken by centres located throughout the world. While needs, availability of resources, costs, the presence of modifying factors and values need to be assessed locally, support for undertaking these assessments may be needed to make guidelines applicable. WHO should provide local support for adapting and implementing recommendations by developing tools, building capacity, learning from international experience, and through international networks that support evidence-informed health policies, such as the Evidence-informed Policy Network (EVIPNet). How should recommendations be adapted? WHO should provide detailed guidance for adaptation of international recommendations. Local adaptation processes should be systematic and transparent, they should involve stakeholders, and they should report the key factors that influence decisions, including those flagged in international guidelines, and the reasons for any modifications that are made.

Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 5. Group processes

Background

The World Health Organization (WHO), like many other organisations around the world, has recognised the need to use more rigorous processes to ensure that health care recommendations are informed by the best available research evidence. This is the fifth of a series of 16 reviews that have been prepared as background for advice from the WHO Advisory Committee on Health Research to WHO on how to achieve this.

Objective

In this review we address approaches to facilitate sound processes within groups that develop recommendations for health care.

Methods

We searched PubMed and three databases of methodological studies for existing systematic reviews and relevant methodological research. We did not conduct systematic reviews ourselves. Our conclusions are based on the available evidence, consideration of what WHO and other organisations are doing and logical arguments.

Key question and answer

What should WHO do to ensure appropriate group processes?

Various strategies can be adopted to ensure that the group processes in play when panels are developing recommendations are inclusive, so that all voices can be heard and all arguments given fair weight, including

• the use of formal consensus development methods, such at the Nominal Group Technique or the Delphi method

• the selection of a group leader who is qualified and responsible for facilitating an appropriate group process.