Prioritization approaches in the development of health practice guidelines: a systematic review

Steps towards operationalizing One Health approaches

One Health recognizes the health of humans, agriculture, wildlife, and the environment are interrelated. The concept has been embraced by international health and environmental authorities such as WHO, WOAH, FAO, and UNEP, but One Health approaches have been more practiced by researchers than national or international authorities. To identify priorities for operationalizing One Health beyond research contexts, we conducted 41 semi-structured interviews with professionals across One Health sectors (public health, environment, agriculture, wildlife) and institutional contexts, who focus on national-scale and international applications. We identify important challenges, solutions, and priorities for delivering the One Health agenda through government action. Participants said One Health has made progress with motivating stakeholders to attempt One Health approaches, but achieving implementation needs more guidance (action plans for how to leverage or change current government infrastructure to accommodate cross-sector policy and strategic mission planning) and facilitation (behavioral change, dedicated personnel, new training model).

Using a priority setting exercise to identify priorities for guidelines on newborn and child health in South Africa, Malawi, and Nigeria

BACKGROUND

Sub-Saharan Africa is the region with the highest under-five mortality rate globally. Child healthcare decisions should be based on rigorously developed evidence-informed guidelines. The Global Evidence, Local Adaptation (GELA) project is enhancing capacity to use global research to develop locally relevant guidelines for newborn and child health in South Africa (SA), Malawi, and Nigeria. The first step in this process was to identify national priorities for newborn and child health guideline development, and this paper describes our approach.

METHODS

We followed a good practice method for priority setting, including stakeholder engagement, online priority setting surveys and consensus meetings, conducted separately in South Africa, Malawi and Nigeria. We established national Steering Groups (SG), comprising 10-13 members representing government, academia, and other stakeholders, identified through existing contacts and references, who helped prioritise initial topics identified by research teams and oversaw the process. Various stakeholders were consulted via online surveys to rate the importance of topics, with results informing consensus meetings with SGs where final priority topics were agreed.

RESULTS

Based on survey results, nine, 10 and 11 topics were identified in SA, Malawi, and Nigeria respectively, which informed consensus meetings. Through voting and discussion within meetings, and further engagement after the meetings, the top three priority topics were identified in each country. In SA, the topics concerned anemia prevention in infants and young children and post-discharge support for caregivers of preterm and LBW babies. In Malawi, they focused on enteral nutrition in critically ill children, diagnosis of childhood cancers in the community, and caring for neonates. In Nigeria, the topics focused on identifying pre-eclampsia in the community, hand hygiene compliance to prevent infections, and enteral nutrition for LBW and preterm infants.

CONCLUSIONS

Through dynamic and iterative stakeholder engagement, we identified three priority topics for guideline development on newborn and child health in SA, Malawi and Nigeria. Topics were specific to contexts, with no overlap, which highlights the importance of contextualised priority setting as well as of the relationships with key decisionmakers who help define the priorities.

Introducing re-weighted range voting in clinical practice guideline prioritization: Development and testing of the re-weighted priority-setting (REPS) tool

We aimed to develop and test a tool based on the re-weighted range voting mechanism to prioritize items (i.e. key questions) in a priority-setting assessment for clinical practice guidelines. The secondary aim was to provide methodological context of the tool. We iteratively developed the tool and used qualitative methods (i.e. think-aloud and semi-structured interviews) to test the tool's usability and make adjustments accordingly. An observational approach was used to test the tool's outcome satisfaction in a real-world priority-setting assessment within a rare-disease guideline of a European Reference Network and under four different conditions in the tool. Four guideline methodologists tested the usability of the tool. The real-world testing was performed with a guideline panel consisting of a core working group, five expertise working groups, and a working group with patient representatives. Thirty-one panel members assigned scores in the priority-setting assessment. Seventeen panel members rated the priority-setting outcome, and sixteen panel members rated the outputs generated under the four conditions. Upon initial use, guideline methodologists found the tool to be quite overwhelming. However, with some initial effort they were able to easily identify the tool's structure. Based on observations and feedback, the tool was further refined and user guidance was developed. Guideline panel members expressed (high) satisfaction with the priority-setting outcome. They particularly preferred the condition when using mean subgroup scores as input or employing aggressive penalties in the weighting method to determine the outputs. The tool generates a ranked list of items and offers flexibility for different choices in priority-setting assessments as long as its input format requirements are met. Although it is not a consensus method, the tool assists in narrowing down a set of priority items. Additional steps in the priority-setting assessment can lead to a consensus being reached regarding the final outcome.

Prioritization of clinical questions for the Australian Living Guideline for the Pharmacological Management of Inflammatory Arthritis

AIM

Living guidelines aim to reduce delays in translating new knowledge into practice by updating individual recommendations as soon as relevant new evidence emerges. We surveyed members of the Australian Rheumatology Association (ARA) to develop a list of priority questions for the Australian Living Guideline for the Pharmacological Management of Inflammatory Arthritis (ALG) and to explore clinicians' use of clinical practice guidelines.

METHODS

An electronic survey of ARA members was performed in two phases. The first survey contained questions about current guideline use and beliefs and invited participants to submit at least three questions relevant to the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). In the second round, participants selected 10 questions they considered to be the highest priority from the collated list and ranked them in priority order. The sum of ranks was used to generate a final priority list.

RESULTS

There were 115 (21%) and 78 (14%) responses to the first and second survey rounds respectively. 87% of respondents use existing rheumatology guidelines in their usual practice, primarily EULAR guidelines. Most respondents favored the development of Australian rheumatology guidelines. In total, 34 potential recommendation topics were identified and ranked in order of priority.

CONCLUSION

A list of 34 clinical questions about RA management, ranked in order of importance by clinicians, has informed the development of the ALG. Similar prioritization exercises in other contexts may permit guidelines to be tailored to the needs of guideline users in their specific context, which may facilitate international collaboration and promote efficient translation of evidence to practice.

Comparing Research Priority-Setting Partnerships for Older Adults Across International Health Care Systems: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

Priority setting partnerships (PSPs) attempt to shape the research agenda to address the needs of local populations of interest. We reviewed the PSPs for older adults, with a focus on exemplar health care systems: United Kingdom (UK; publicly funded), United States (private health insurance-based), South Korea (national health insurance-based), and Africa (out-of-pocket).

DESIGN

Systematic review.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

We searched databases and sources (January 2011-October 202l; updated in February 2023) for PSPs of older adults' health care.

METHODS

Based on the British geriatric medicine curriculum, we extracted and categorized the PSP topics by areas and the research priorities by themes, and generated evidence maps depicting and comparing the research gaps across the systems. We evaluated PSP quality using the Nine Common Themes of Good Clinical Practice.

RESULTS

We included 32 PSPs (United Kingdom: n = 25; United States: n = 7; South Korea and Africa: n = 0) and identified priorities regarding 27 conditions or service arrangements in the United Kingdom and 9 in the United States (predominantly in neurology/psychiatry). The UK priorities focused on treatments and interventions whereas the US on prognostic/predictive factors. There were notable research gaps within the existing PSPs, including common geriatric conditions like continence and frailty. The PSP quality evaluation revealed issues around lacking inclusion of ethnic minorities.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Research priorities for older adult health care vary internationally, but certain health care systems/countries have no available PSPs. Where PSPs are available, fundamental aspects of geriatric medicine have not been included. Future researchers should conduct prioritizations in different countries, focus on core geriatric syndromes, and ensure the inclusion of all relevant stakeholder groups.

Methodology for the adolopment of recommendations for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

BACKGROUND

Currently, there are no guidelines for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) tailored to the context of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). Adaptation of guidelines accounts for contextual factors and becomes more efficient than de novo guideline development when relevant, good quality, and up-to-date guidelines are available. The objective of this study is to describe the methodology used for the adolopment of the 2021 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) guidelines for the treatment of RA in the KSA.

METHODS

We followed the 'Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation' (GRADE)-ADOLOPMENT methodology. The adolopment KSA panel included relevant stakeholders and leading contributors to the original guidelines. We developed a list of five adaptation-relevant prioritization criteria that the panelists applied to the original recommendations. We updated the original evidence profiles with newly published studies identified by the panelists. We constructed Evidence to Decision (EtD) tables including contextual information from the KSA setting. We used the PanelVoice function of GRADEPro Guideline Development Tool (GDT) to obtain the panel's judgments on the EtD criteria ahead of the panel meeting. Following the meeting, we used the PANELVIEW instrument to obtain the panel's evaluation of the process.

RESULTS

The KSA panel prioritized five recommendations, for which one evidence profile required updating. Out of five adoloped recommendations, two were modified in terms of direction, and one was modified in terms of certainty of the evidence. Criteria driving the modifications in direction were valuation of outcomes, balance of effects, cost, and acceptability. The mean score on the 7-point scale items of the PANELVIEW instrument had an average of 6.47 (SD = 0.18) across all items.

CONCLUSION

The GRADE-ADOLOPMENT methodology proved to be efficient. The panel assessed the process and outcome positively. Engagement of stakeholders proved to be important for the success of this project.

Improving prioritization processes for clinical practice guidelines: new methods and an evaluation from the National Heart Foundation of Australia

BACKGROUND

Releasing timely and relevant clinical guidelines is challenging for organizations globally. Priority-setting is crucial, as guideline development is resource-intensive. Our aim, as a national organization responsible for developing cardiovascular clinical guidelines, was to develop a method for generating and prioritizing topics for future clinical guideline development in areas where guidance was most needed.

METHODS

Several novel processes were developed, adopted and evaluated, including (1) initial public consultation for health professionals and the general public to generate topics; (2) thematic and qualitative analysis, according to the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11), to aggregate topics; (3) adapting a criteria-based matrix tool to prioritize topics; (4) achieving consensus through a modified-nominal group technique and voting on priorities; and (5) process evaluation via survey of end-users. The latter comprised the organization's Expert Committee of 12 members with expertise across cardiology and public health, including two citizen representatives.

RESULTS

Topics (n = 405; reduced to n = 278 when duplicates removed) were identified from public consultation responses (n = 107 respondents). Thematic analysis synthesized 127 topics that were then categorized into 37 themes using ICD-11 codes. Exclusion criteria were applied (n = 32 themes omitted), resulting in five short-listed topics: (1) congenital heart disease, (2) valvular heart disease, (3) hypercholesterolaemia, (4) hypertension and (5) ischaemic heart diseases and diseases of the coronary artery. The Expert Committee applied the prioritization matrix to all five short-listed topics during a consensus meeting and voted to prioritize topics. Unanimous consensus was reached for the topic voted the highest priority: ischaemic heart disease and diseases of the coronary arteries, resulting in the decision to update the organization's 2016 clinical guidelines for acute coronary syndromes. Evaluation indicated that initial public consultation was highly valued by the Expert Committee, and the matrix tool was easy to use and improved transparency in priority-setting.

CONCLUSION

Developing a multistage, systematic process, incorporating public consultation and an international classification system led to improved transparency in our clinical guideline priority-setting processes and that topics chosen would have the greatest impact on health outcomes. These methods are potentially applicable to other national and international organizations responsible for developing clinical guidelines.

Prioritization process for European Academy of Neurology clinical practice guidelines

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The development of high-quality clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) takes substantial time, effort, and resources. During the past years, the European Academy of Neurology (EAN) guideline production was significantly increased, so the need to develop clear, transparent, and methodologically solid criteria for prioritizing guideline topics became apparent. With this paper, we aim to define a set of criteria to be applied for prioritizing topics for future EAN guidelines, as well as the procedure for their implementation.

METHODS

After review of the literature, we identified a recent systematic review that reported on the main prioritization criteria used by health organizations. Based on these, we developed a list of 20 preliminary criteria, which were voted on through a Delphi consensus procedure, including 160 stakeholders. Finally, we established a working procedure on how to submit and select new guideline topic proposals within the EAN. This procedure was reviewed by the EAN Scientific Committee and the Board.

RESULTS

The first round, 61.3% of the participants voted, and 86% of them participated in the second round. Seven criteria were approved with this procedure. After the selection of the criteria, a prioritization procedure was launched, and the first 30 topics are reported in this paper. This bottom-up process that involved the whole EAN community was followed by a top-down process, using additional criteria for further selection by the EAN board members.

CONCLUSIONS

We describe the development of prioritization criteria to be applied in the process of topic selection for future EAN CPGs. We will perform regular reviews and adjustments of the process.

Comparing international dementia research priorities-Systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Research priority setting aims to collate stakeholder opinion to determine the most pressing research questions. Priority setting exercises influence decisions around research funding, development and policy. We compared published dementia research priority setting exercises from international healthcare systems.

METHODS

Four multidisciplinary, international, electronic databases were searched for relevant studies (2010 until 2021). Priorities were extracted, coded and assigned to categories using thematic analysis. The Nine Common Themes of Good Practice (9CTGP) and the Reporting guideline for priority setting of health research (REPRISE) checklists were used to assess methodological and reporting quality respectively.

RESULTS

From 265 titles, 10 priority setting exercises (1179 participants, 147 priorities) were included. Studies spanned four continents and the majority included people living with dementia and their care-givers in the priority setting process (68%). Only one paper met all the best practice indicators. Issues around inclusiveness, implementation and evaluation of the priorities were apparent in nine papers. We categorised priorities under eight themes: caregivers (25%, n = 37), support (24%, n = 35), awareness and education (16%, n = 24), drugs and interventions (14%, n = 21), diagnosis (8%, n = 12), pathology (6%, n = 9), research design (5%, n = 7), and prevention (1%, n = 2). Priorities varied by geographical region, with awareness and education of higher priority in low-middle income countries, compared to caregivers and support in high income countries.

CONCLUSIONS

Key priorities were identified with some commonality around themes considered of greatest importance. There is scope to improve the process and reporting of priority setting. Priorities differed according to contextual factors and so, priorities specific to one healthcare setting may not be applicable to others.

Baseline Assessment of Health Research Systems in Saudi Arabia: Harnessing Efforts and Mobilizing Actions

Major transformations are taking place in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) to achieve the 2030 vision for the health sector. A key component in strengthening the health system is a strong research governance strategy that can support the decision-making process by providing timely and accurate evidence that reflects local context and needs. This paper sought to better understand governance structures and policies for health research systems and support clusters so that they function effectively. This paper outlines the findings of an in-depth baseline assessment of existing health research efforts, activities, and plans of eight research clusters in the KSA and identifies key gaps and strengths in health research governance and capabilities. A cross-sectional design was used to survey research clusters in KSA. A six-part survey was developed to better understand the research clusters' health research governance and capacities. The survey was sent to all KSA clusters and was completed in a group setting during meetings. Findings clearly show strong efforts to support research governance initiatives in health clusters in KSA. While some clusters are more advanced than others, there are plenty of opportunities to share knowledge and combine efforts to help achieve the goals set out for KSA health transformation. This baseline assessment also reflects the first attempt of its kind to understand the KSA experience and provide much-needed lessons on country-wide efforts to support the health system given the trickling effect of this sector on all others, enhancing and advancing national growth.

Questions and health outcomes prioritization for the development of a COVID-19 dental clinical practice guideline: A case study

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

In the context of a pandemic, the rapid development of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) is critical. The guideline development process includes prioritization of the guideline topic, questions and health outcomes. This case study describes the application of a new methodology to prioritize questions and rate the importance of health outcomes for a COVID-19 dental guideline.

METHODS

Panel members rated the topic and the questions' overall importance, using a 9-point scale (1 = least important; 9 = most important). In addition, they rated six criteria if multiple questions received the same overall importance rating: common in practice, uncertainty in practice, variation in practice, new evidence available, cost consequences, not previously addressed. Panellists also rated the importance of each outcome, defined with health outcome descriptors, using a 9-point scale and the utility of health outcomes on a visual analogue scale. The correlation between each criterion and overall question importance was tested by Spearman correlation coefficient.

RESULTS

Of seven topics, four were rated as high priority and three were rated as important, but not of high priority. Thirty-six percent of the questions (18/50) were rated as high priority to address in the guideline and 64% (32/50) were rated as an important question but not of high priority. Of the 11 outcomes, 72.7% were rated as critical for decision making. The mean utility rating was 0.57 (SD 0.32), with a minimum mean rating of 0.16 and a maximum of 0.76 (SD 0.23).

CONCLUSION

This case study demonstrated that this approach provides a rigorous and transparent methodology to conduct the prioritizations of guideline topics, questions and health outcomes.

Approaches to prioritising primary health research: a scoping review

Objective

To systematically identify and describe approaches to prioritise primary research topics in any health-related area.

Methods

We searched Medline and CINAHL databases and Google Scholar. Teams of two reviewers screened studies and extracted data in duplicate and independently. We synthesised the information across the included approaches by developing common categorisation of relevant concepts.

Results

Of 44 392 citations, 30 articles reporting on 25 approaches were included, addressing the following fields: health in general (n=9), clinical (n=10), health policy and systems (n=10), public health (n=6) and health service research (n=5) (10 addressed more than 1 field). The approaches proposed the following aspects to be addressed in the prioritisation process: situation analysis/ environmental scan, methods for generation of initial list of topics, use of prioritisation criteria, stakeholder engagement, ranking process/technique, dissemination and implementation, revision and appeal mechanism, and monitoring and evaluation. Twenty-two approaches proposed involving stakeholders in the priority setting process. The most commonly proposed stakeholder category was ‘researchers/academia’ (n=17, 77%) followed by ‘healthcare providers’ (n=16, 73%). Fifteen of the approaches proposed a list of criteria for determining research priorities. We developed a common framework of 28 prioritisation criteria clustered into nine domains. The criterion most frequently mentioned by the identified approaches was ‘health burden’ (n=12, 80%), followed by ‘availability of resources’ (n=11, 73%).

Conclusion

We identified and described 25 prioritisation approaches for primary research topics in any health-related area. Findings highlight the need for greater participation of potential users (eg, policy-makers and the general public) and incorporation of equity as part of the prioritisation process. Findings can guide the work of researchers, policy-makers and funders seeking to conduct or fund primary health research. More importantly, the findings should be used to enhance a more coordinated approach to prioritising health research to inform decision making at all levels.

What do we know about evidence-informed priority setting processes to set population-level health-research agendas: an overview of reviews

BACKGROUND

This overview aimed to synthesize existing systematic reviews to produce a draft framework of evidence-informed health priority setting that supports countries in identifying appropriate steps and methods when developing and implementing national research agendas.

MAIN BODY

We searched Ovid MEDLINE® and the WHO Institutional Repository for Information Sharing from 2010 to 2020 for critical or systematic reviews that evaluated research priority setting exercises. We adapted the AMSTAR checklist to assess the quality of included reviews and used adapted frameworks for data extraction and analysis. The search resulted in 2395 titles, of which 31 were included. Populations included in the reviews typically involved patients, families and carers, researchers, clinicians, policymakers and research funders. The topics covered in the reviews varied from specific diseases or conditions, approaches for healthcare practice or research priority setting methods itself. All the included systematic reviews were of low or critically low quality. The studies were thematically grouped based on their main focus: identifying and engaging with stakeholders; methods; context; and health area.

CONCLUSION

Our overview of reviews has reconfirmed aspects of existing frameworks, but has also identified new concepts for countries to consider while developing their national research agendas. We propose a preliminary framework for consideration that highlights four key phases: (1) preparatory, (2) priority setting, (3) follow-up phase and (4) sustainability phase, which have thirteen sub-domains to consider.

New methods facilitated the process of prioritizing questions and health outcomes in guideline development

BACKGROUND

Health guideline development requires sequential prioritization of the guideline topic, questions, and health outcomes. In this paper we report on new approaches for prioritizing questions and outcomes in guidelines.

METHODS

Ten guideline panels on venous thromboembolism rated potential guideline questions on a 9-point scale according to their overall importance and 6 criteria: common in practice, uncertainty in practice, variation in practice, new evidence available, cost consequences, not previously addressed. We randomized panelists to rate one potential question with and without the 6 criteria. Panelists rated importance of outcomes, defined with health outcome descriptors (HODs), using a 9-point scale, and health utility of outcomes on a visual analogue scale.

RESULTS

Of 469 potential questions identified, 72.5% were rated as important but not of high priority, and 25.4% as high priority. Each criterion was significantly associated with the overall importance rating. The overall importance rating means were 5.96 (SD 2.38) and 6.53 (SD 2.45) (P = 0.25) for those randomized to rate questions with and without the criteria, respectively. The mean importance rating for 121 outcomes was 6.01 (SD 1.25), with 35.5% rated as critical for decision-making. Panelists provided health utility ratings for 127 outcomes, with a minimum mean rating of 0.12 (SD 0.10) and maximum of 0.91 (SD 0.15).

CONCLUSION

Our structured process provided information to help explain perspectives of question importance, to facilitate panels' outcome prioritization, and to facilitate decision-making in guideline development.

The UpPriority tool supported prioritization processes for updating clinical guideline questions

OBJECTIVE

We aim to 1) use the UpPriority tool to identify which clinical questions (CQs) within the clinical guidelines (CGs) need to be prioritized for updating and 2) assess the implementation of the tool in a real-world set of CGs.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We systematically assessed CQs from a sample of CGs developed in the Spanish National Health System CG program. We applied the UpPriority tool to each CG using a step-by-step process that included: 1) establishment of the UpPriority Implementation Working Group, 2) mapping of the original CG questions and recommendations, 3) development of a survey to prioritize CQs, 4) assessment of CQ's priority according to six items, 5) calculation and ranking of priority scores, 6) decision of prioritized CQs for updating, and 7) development of the priority report. We assessed the tool implementation process (appraisers' experience when using the tool) and the inter-observer reliability of the tool, and we provided suggestions for improvement.

RESULTS

We included four CGs with a total of 107 CQs on the following topics: chronic heart failure (10 CQs), inherited retinal dystrophies (39 CQs), menopause (20 CQs), and open-angle glaucoma (38 CQs). We included a total of 30 participants, most of them clinicians that were members of the original CG development groups. CQs were classified in three groups: 1) high priority (CQs prioritized for updating [16/107; 15.0%]), 2) medium priority (CQs that could be prioritized for updating [47/107; 43.9%]), and low priority (CQs that were not prioritized for updating [44/107; 41.1%]). The mean time each appraiser needed to assess the CQs with the tool was 3.8 hours (range 0.5 to 10). Agreement among the appraisers varied among the CGs. Appraisers considered that the tool was useful. We suggest some areas for consideration when using the tool including: 1) identification of key appraisers, 2) customization of training materials, 3) establishment of priority thresholds, and 4) provision of methodological support.

CONCLUSION

The UpPriority is a useful tool to identify which CQs within a CG need to be prioritized for update in a real-world scenario. Recruitment and training of topic experts are the main challenges when using the tool.

Contextual differences considered in the Tunisian ADOLOPMENT of the European guidelines on breast cancer screening

Background

Breast cancer is a common disease in Tunisia and is associated with high mortality rates. The “Instance Nationale de l’Evaluation et de l’Accréditation en Santé” (INEAS) and the Tunisian Society of Oncology decided to develop practice guidelines on the subject. While the development of de novo guidelines on breast cancer screening is a demanding process, guideline adaptation appears more appropriate and context sensitive. The objective of this paper is to describe the adaptation process of the European Guidelines on Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis to the Tunisian setting in terms of the methodological process, contextual differences between the source and adoloped guideline, and changes in the recommendations.

Methods

We used the ‘Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation’ (GRADE)-ADOLOPMENT methodology to prioritize the topic, select the source guideline, and prioritize the questions and the outcomes. Once the source guideline was selected—the European Breast Cancer Guidelines—the European Commission´s Joint Research Centre shared with the project team in Tunisia all relevant documents and files. In parallel, the project team searched for local studies on the disease prevalence, associated outcomes’ baseline risks, patients’ values and preferences, cost, cost-effectiveness, acceptability, and feasibility. Then, the adoloping panel reviewed the GRADE evidence tables and the Evidence to Decision tables and discussed whether their own judgments were consistent with those from the source guideline or not. They based their judgments on the evidence on health effects, the contextual evidence, and their own experiences.

Results

The most relevant contextual differences between the source and adoloped guidelines were related to the perspective, scope, prioritized questions, rating of outcome importance, baseline risks, and indirectness of the evidence. The ADOLOPMENT process resulted in keeping 5 out of 6 recommendations unmodified. One recommendation addressing “screening versus no screening with ultrasound in women with high breast density on mammography screening” was modified from ‘conditional against’ to ‘conditional for either’ due to more favorable ratings by the adoloping panel in terms of equity and feasibility.

Conclusion

This process illustrates both the feasibility of GRADE-ADOLOPMENT approach and the importance of consideration of contextual evidence. It also highlights the value of collaboration with the organization that developed the source guideline.

Defining key questions for clinical practice guidelines: a novel approach for developing clinically relevant questions

Background

There is no standardised protocol for developing clinically relevant guideline questions. We aimed to create such a protocol and to apply it to developing a new guideline.

Methods

We reviewed international guideline manuals and, through consensus, combined steps for developing clinical questions to produce a best-practice protocol that incorporated qualitative research. The protocol was applied to develop clinical questions for a guideline for general practitioners.

Results

A best-practice protocol incorporating qualitative research was created. Using the protocol, we developed 10 clinical questions that spanned diagnosis, management and follow-up.

Conclusions

Guideline developers can apply this protocol to develop clinically relevant guideline questions.

The implementation of prioritization exercises in the development and update of health practice guidelines: A scoping review

Background

The development of trustworthy guidelines requires substantial investment of resources and time. This highlights the need to prioritize topics for guideline development and update.

Objective

To systematically identify and describe prioritization exercises that have been conducted for the purpose of the de novo development, update or adaptation of health practice guidelines.

Methods

We searched Medline and CINAHL electronic databases from inception to July 2019, supplemented by hand-searching Google Scholar and the reference lists of relevant studies. We included studies describing prioritization exercises that have been conducted during the de novo development, update or adaptation of guidelines addressing clinical, public health or health systems topics. Two reviewers worked independently and in duplicate to complete study selection and data extraction. We consolidated findings in a semi-quantitative and narrative way.

Results

Out of 33,339 identified citations, twelve studies met the eligibility criteria. All included studies focused on prioritizing topics; none on questions or outcomes. While three exercises focused on updating guidelines, nine were on de novo development. All included studies addressed clinical topics. We adopted a framework that categorizes prioritization into 11 steps clustered in three phases (pre-prioritization, prioritization and post-prioritization). Four studies covered more than half of the 11 prioritization steps across the three phases. The most frequently reported steps for generating initial list of topics were stakeholders’ input (n = 8) and literature review (n = 7). The application of criteria to determine research priorities was used in eight studies. We used and updated a common framework of 22 prioritization criteria, clustered in 6 domains. The most frequently reported criteria related to the health burden of disease (n = 9) and potential impact of the intervention on health outcomes (n = 5). All the studies involved health care providers in the prioritization exercises. Only one study involved patients. There was a variation in the number and type of the prioritization exercises’ outputs.

Conclusions

This review included 12 prioritization exercises that addressed different aspects of priority setting for guideline development and update that can guide the work of researchers, funders, and other stakeholders seeking to prioritize guideline topics.