Search

Background: Guideline development on testing is known to be difficult for guideline developers. It requires consideration of various aspects, such as accuracy, purpose of testing, and consequences on management and people-important outcomes. This can be outlined in a test-management pathway. We aimed to create and user-test a step-by-step guide for guideline developers for designing a test-management pathway., Methods: Developmental design with a co-creative strategy. We created a draft step-by-step guide, that was user tested in a workshop with 19 experts, and by interviewing 7 guideline panel members., Results: Our proposed guide consists of five blocks of signalling questions: patients/population, index test(s), current practice/comparison/control, people-important outcomes, and the link between testing and outcome(s). The user testing led to refinement of the signalling questions, the use of inclusive terminology, and addition of a test-management pathway figure with detailed explanation., Conclusions: The step-by-step guide for formulating focused guideline questions regarding healthcare related testing can help in identifying relevant characteristics of the population, tests, and outcomes and to create a test management pathway. This should facilitate the formulation of evidence-based guideline recommendations about healthcare related testing., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objectives: To define the minimum knowledge required for guideline panel members (healthcare professionals and consumers) involved in developing recommendations about healthcare related testing., Study Design and Setting: A developmental study with a multistaged approach. We derived a first set of knowledge components from literature and subsequently performed semistructured interviews with 9 experts. We refined the set of knowledge components and checked it with the interviewees for final approval., Results: Understanding the test-management pathway, for example, how test results should be used in context of decisions about interventions, is the key knowledge component. The final list includes 26 items on the following topics: health question, test-management pathway, target population, test, test result, interpretation of test results and subsequent management, and impact on people important outcomes. For each item, the required level of knowledge is defined., Conclusion: We developed a list of knowledge components required for guideline panels to formulate recommendations on healthcare related testing. The list could be used to design specific training programs for guideline panel members when developing recommendations about tests and testing strategies in healthcare., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest M.K.T is GIN member and member of the GRADE Working Group. J.J.A. de Beer is GIN member and member of the GRADE Working Group. R.A.M. is a member of the GRADE working Group and ex-member of the GRADE Guidance Group and the GRADE test and diagnosis project group. C.S. is GIN member and past chair of the GIN PUBLIC working group (2020), member of the Guideline Commission of the German Association of the scientific medical societies, and chair of the German Health Literacy Network. H.J.S. is co-chair of the GRADE Working Group, chair of the GIN board, and head of the INGUIDE steering committee. M.W.L. is member of the GRADE Guidance Group, member of the GIN board, and INGUIDE instructor., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Several funding organizations using different agendas support research in general practice. Topic selection and prioritization are often not coordinated, which may lead to duplication and research waste., Objectives: To develop systematically a national research agenda for general practice involving general practitioners, researchers, patients and other relevant stakeholders in healthcare., Methods: We reviewed knowledge gaps from 90 Dutch general practice guidelines and formulated research questions based on these gaps. In addition, we asked 96 healthcare stakeholders to add research questions relevant for general practice. All research questions were prioritized by practising general practitioners in an online survey (n = 232) and by participants of an invitational conference including general practitioners (n = 48) and representatives of other stakeholders in healthcare (n = 16), e.g. patient organizations and medical specialists., Results: We identified 787 research questions. These were categorized in two ways: according to the chapters of the International Classification for Primary Care (ICPC) and in 12 themes such as common conditions, person-centred care and patient education, collaboration and organization of care. The prioritizing procedure resulted in top 10 lists of research questions for each ICPC chapter and each theme., Conclusion: The process resulted in a widely supported National Research Agenda for General Practice. We encourage both researchers and funding organizations to use this agenda to focus their research on the most relevant issues in general practice and to generate new evidence for the next generation of guidelines and the future of general practice.

Objective: To review evidence-based (EB) recommendations on survivorship care for primary care providers (PCPs) in EB breast cancer guidelines., Design and Setting: Guidelines were collected via experts and via literature database, guideline database and cancer agency websites searches., Method: EB guidelines in any language published between 2012 and 2017 were collected. EB recommendations on survivorship care relevant for PCPs were extracted and grouped into three categories (recurrence detection, long-term effects and recurrence prevention). The content of the recommendations was analysed and summarised in the number and type of clinical topics addressed. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the guidelines., Results: Six guidelines, of which two were of acceptable methodological quality, were included. One was specifically made for general practitioners. Fifteen clinical topics were identified. Guidelines differed in the clinical topics addressed and for some identical topics in the content of the recommendations. Many recommendations were based on low-quality evidence. Recurrence detection received most attention, physical examination and mammography were often highlighted. Potential complications largely varied in number and type. Intimacy concerns, vaginal dryness, dyspareunia, fatigue, menopausal symptoms, peripheral neuropathy and lymphedema were reported in more than one guideline. Recurrence prevention was mentioned in four guidelines; all recommended physical activity., Conclusion: The number of EB recommendations in guidelines is limited. Moreover, recommendations differ between guidelines and most are based on low-quality evidence. More high-quality research is needed to develop and adapt guidelines to support PCPs in providing optimal breast cancer survivorship care., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Background: General practitioners (GPs) will face cancer recurrences more frequently due to the rising number of cancer survivors and greater involvement of GPs in the follow-up care. Currently, GPs are uncertain about managing recurrence risks and may need more guidance., Objective: To explore what guidance is available for GPs on managing recurrence risks for breast cancer, colorectal cancer and melanoma, and to examine whether recurrence risk management differs between these tumour types., Methods: Breast cancer, colorectal cancer and melanoma clinical practice guidelines were identified via searches on internet and the literature, and experts were approached to identify guidelines. Guidance on recurrence risk management that was (potentially) relevant for GPs was extracted and summarized into topics., Results: We included 24 breast cancer, 21 colorectal cancer and 15 melanoma guidelines. Identified topics on recurrence risk management were rather similar among the three tumour types. The main issue in the guidelines was recurrence detection through consecutive diagnostic testing. Guidelines agree on both routine and nonroutine tests, but, recommended frequencies for follow-up are inconsistent, except for mammography screening for breast cancer. Only six guidelines provided targeted guidance for GPs., Conclusion: This inventory shows that recurrence risk management has overlapping areas between tumour types, making it more feasible for GPs to provide this care. However, few guidance on recurrence risk management is specific for GPs. Recommendations on time intervals of consecutive diagnostic tests are inconsistent, making it difficult for GPs to manage recurrence risks and illustrating the need for more guidance targeted for GPs., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

The Dutch College of General Practitioners (NHG) recently published the practice guideline 'Lumbosacral radicular syndrome'. This guideline provides general practitioners with guidance for the diagnostic workup and treatment of patients with lumbosacral radicular syndrome. In this article we discuss the most important changes and modifications to this guideline point by point. The most important recommendations for management are summarized in a flowchart.

The revised Dutch College of General Practitioners (Nederlands Huisartsen Genootschap [NHG]) guideline 'Deep-vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolus' includes recommendations for the treatment of patients with deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) and thrombophlebitis, and for the exclusion of pulmonary embolism (PE). The general practitioner (GP) can exclude the presence of DVT or PE in some patients by using a decision rule and a D-dimer test. When using D-dimer test as a point-of-care test, meticulous care is essential during the test procedure and storage of blood. The GP can treat many patients with DVT; the NHG guideline does not advise use of direct oral anticoagulants. In the case of an isolated DVT in the calf, treatment with anticoagulants or ultrasound follow-up can be chosen in consultation with the patient or on the basis of regional agreements. In the case of patients with superficial thrombophlebitis, a wait-and-see approach is usually sufficient.

The revised Dutch College of General Practitioners' practice guideline on 'Vaginal bleeding' provides recommendations for abnormal bleeding in women in the reproduction phase of life and for post-menopausal bleeding. This guideline is closely attuned to the guideline on 'Heavy menstrual bleeding' of the Dutch Society of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. Transvaginal sonography is not reliable for excluding endometrial carcinoma in women with abnormal vaginal bleeding treated with tamoxifen. The choice of medical treatment is determined in consultation with the patient. The following factors are assessed: severity and bother, long-term need for contraception, preference for cycle control, desire to have a child, pain during menstruation, comorbidity and use of medication. Treatment options are nonhormonal (NSAIDs, or tranexamic acid) or hormonal (a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system, or combined oral contraceptive). In women of reproductive age, referral is indicated if medical treatment is not effective. Other indications are intracavitary abnormalities diagnosed by transvaginal sonography, tamoxifen use, persistent contact bleeding, and suspicion of coagulation disorders. Indications for referral for post-menopausal bleeding include: sonographic endometrial thickness > 4 mm, abnormal cervical cytology, tamoxifen use, irregular bleeding during use of hormone therapy for vasomotor symptoms and persistent or recurrent bleeding, regardless of endometrial thickness.

Rationale, Aims and Objectives: Interventions aimed at improving guideline adherence should take into account the specific features of the target users; however, it is unclear how general practitioners (GPs) evaluate the different types of interventions. The aim of this paper was to identify GPs' preferences for interventions to improve guideline adherence in practice and whether these differ across key guideline recommendations., Method: An electronic survey was conducted among 703 GPs working in the south-western part of the Netherlands. Each survey focused on two of four guidelines: cerebrovascular accident, eye inflammation, thyroid disorders and urinary tract infection. GPs were asked to rate potential interventions in terms of their usefulness in improving guideline adherence in general and for specific key guideline recommendations., Results: 264 GPs (38%) completed the questionnaire. In general, GPs preferred interactive small group meetings (84% rated this as much or very much encouraging), audit and feedback (53%), organizational interventions (50%) and the use of local opinion leaders (50%) as methods for improving guideline adherence. Financial interventions (24%), distribution of educational materials (22%) and big group educational meetings (21%) were of least interest. Some interventions were preferred by GPs irrespective of the specific key recommendations (e.g. audit and feedback), while ratings for other interventions differed across key recommendations (reminders/computer support)., Conclusions: To implement guidelines, interventions need to be identified that are acceptable and appealing to the target group. GPs seem to have general and recommendation-specific preferences regarding interventions, these should be taken into account when developing plans for guideline implementation to encourage the uptake of guidelines in practice., (© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Guideline development and uptake are still suboptimal; they focus on clinical aspects of diseases rather than on improving the integration of care. We used a patient-centered network approach to develop five harmonized guidelines (one multidisciplinary and four monodisciplinary) around clinical pathways in fertility care. We assessed the feasibility of this approach with a detailed process evaluation of the guideline development, professionals' experiences, and time invested., Methods: The network structure comprised the centrally located patients and the steering committee; a multidisciplinary guideline development group (gynecologists, physicians, urologists, clinical embryologists, clinical chemists, a medical psychologist, an occupational physician, and two patient representatives); and four monodisciplinary guideline development groups. The guideline development addressed patient-centered, organizational, and medical-technical key questions derived from interviews with patients and professionals. These questions were elaborated and distributed among the groups. We evaluated the project performance, participants' perceptions of the approach, and the time needed, including time for analysis of secondary sources, interviews with eight key figures, and a written questionnaire survey among 35 participants., Results: Within 20 months, this approach helped us develop a multidisciplinary guideline for treating infertility and four related monodisciplinary guidelines for general infertility, unexplained infertility, male infertility, and semen analysis. The multidisciplinary guideline included recommendations for the main medical-technical matters and for organizational and patient-centered issues in clinical care pathways. The project was carried out as planned except for minor modifications and three extra consensus meetings. The participants were enthusiastic about the approach, the respect for autonomy, the project coordinator's role, and patient involvement. Suggestions for improvement included timely communication about guideline formats, the timeline, participants' responsibilities, and employing a librarian and more support staff. The 35 participants spent 4497 hours in total on this project., Conclusions: The novel patient-centered network approach is feasible for simultaneously and collaboratively developing a harmonized set of multidisciplinary and monodisciplinary guidelines around clinical care pathways for patients with fertility problems. Further research is needed to compare the efficacy of this approach with more traditional approaches.

Many patients of all ages have multiple conditions, yet clinicians often lack explicit guidance on how to approach clinical decision-making for such people. Most recommendations from clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) focus on the management of single diseases, and may be harmful or impractical for patients with multimorbidity. A major barrier to the development of guidance for people with multimorbidity stems from the fact that the evidence underlying CPGs derives from studies predominantly focused on the management of a single disease. In this paper, the investigators from the Improving Guidelines for Multimorbid Patients Study Group present consensus-based recommendations for guideline developers to make guidelines more useful for the care of people with multimorbidity. In an iterative process informed by review of key literature and experience, we drafted a list of issues and possible approaches for addressing important coexisting conditions in each step of the guideline development process, with a focus on considering relevant interactions between the conditions, their treatments and their outcomes. The recommended approaches address consideration of coexisting conditions at all major steps in CPG development, from nominating and scoping the topic, commissioning the work group, refining key questions, ranking importance of outcomes, conducting systematic reviews, assessing quality of evidence and applicability, summarizing benefits and harms, to formulating recommendations and grading their strength. The list of issues and recommendations was reviewed and refined iteratively by stakeholders. This framework acknowledges the challenges faced by CPG developers who must make complex judgments in the absence of high-quality or direct evidence. These recommendations require validation through implementation, evaluation and refinement.

Background: In the last decade, guideline organizations faced a number of problems, including a lack of standardization in guideline development methods and suboptimal guideline implementation. To contribute to the solution of these problems, we produced a toolbox for guideline development, implementation, revision, and evaluation., Methods: All relevant guideline organizations in the Netherlands were approached to prioritize the topics. We sent out a questionnaire and discussed the results at an invitational conference. Based on consensus, twelve topics were selected for the development of new tools. Subsequently, working groups were composed for the development of the tools. After development of the tools, their draft versions were pilot tested in 40 guideline projects. Based on the results of the pilot tests, the tools were refined and their final versions were presented., Results: The vast majority of organizations involved in pilot testing of the tools reported satisfaction with using the tools. Guideline experts involved in pilot testing of the tools proposed a variety of suggestions for the implementation of the tools. The tools are available in Dutch and in English at a web-based platform on guideline development and implementation (http://www.ha-ring.nl)., Conclusions: A collaborative approach was used for the development and evaluation of a toolbox for development, implementation, revision, and evaluation of guidelines. This approach yielded a potentially powerful toolbox for improving the quality and implementation of Dutch clinical guidelines. Collaboration between guideline organizations within this project led to stronger linkages, which is useful for enhancing coordination of guideline development and implementation and preventing duplication of efforts. Use of the toolbox could improve quality standards in the Netherlands, and might facilitate the development of high-quality guidelines in other countries as well.

The revised guideline on 'Acute diarrhoea' from the Dutch College of General Practitioners covers the diagnosis and management of suspected acute infectious diarrhoea. Acute diarrhoea resulting from infectious gastroenteritis is often caused by a virus and is usually self-limiting; stool testing is rarely indicated. The main complication of acute diarrhoea is dehydration, although this is rare in the Netherlands. Children under 2 years old and patients over 70 are at an increased risk of dehydration. Dehydration is a clinical diagnosis based on a combination of patient history and physical examination. DNA diagnostic methods such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR) are now available for stool testing, in addition to stool culture and the triple faeces test (TFT). PCR is preferred for its better test properties. Treatment with oral rehydration salts (ORS) is indicated for patients with dehydration and may also be useful in patients at an increased risk of this event. Acute diarrhoea after hospitalisation or after visiting the tropics or subtropics merits special attention on account of the risk of infection with unusual pathogens and the consequences with regard to management.

The guideline 'The STD consultation' of the Dutch College of General Practitioners provides guidelines for the diagnosis and management of patients with symptoms of a sexually transmitted disease (STD), patients at high risk of being infected with a STD (risk groups), and patients with questions or concerns about STDs. The test policy depends on the patient's symptoms and risks and is extensively described in the guideline. Men who have sex with men (MSM), prostitutes, people who visit prostitutes, people from countries in which STDs are endemic, people with multiple sexual partners, and people with a partner from one of these groups are at increased risk of contracting one of the five major STDs (chlamydia, gonorrhoea, syphilis, hepatitis B, and HIV). Patients originating from HIV-endemic regions or MSM can be offered HIV and, if appropriate, hepatitis B testing. Young men and women (< 25 years) can be offered chlamydia testing.- Treatment is dependent on the causative agent.

The Dutch College of General Practitioners practice guideline 'Eczema' provides recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of common types of eczema: atopic dermatitis, contact dermatitis, acro-vesicular eczema, nummular eczema, hypostatic eczema, and asteatotic eczema. Age is an important factor when determining the type of eczema. According to the guideline, patient history and physical examination are sufficient in the diagnosis of eczema; additional investigations are rarely indicated. Moisturizing the skin with neutral emollients is the cornerstone of treatment for patients with eczema. If treatment with glucocorticoids is indicated, it is recommended that patients should start with short-term twice daily application, decreasing to once daily application. The guideline advises not to treat eczema patients with tar preparations. General practitioners are also advised not to prescribe calcineurin inhibitors. How work may affect eczema, or how eczema may affect work, should be considered in adult patients.

The revised practice guideline 'Delirium' of the Dutch College of General Practitioners (NHG) provides recommendations about the prevention, early detection, diagnosis and treatment of delirium in elderly patients in general practice. The guideline now also offers tools for the treatment of delirium in terminally-ill patients. A patient with delirium can only be cared for at home if a safe environment and the continuous presence of carers can be guaranteed. This requires close cooperation between the care services and the home carers involved and good coordination with the general practice health centre. The discharge from hospital of patients with persistent symptoms of delirium to their homes requires optimal transfer from the specialist/nursing staff to the general practitioner and home carers involved. The NHG guideline therefore pays considerable attention to collaboration and transfer in the care of patients with delirium. The revised version of this guideline was developed in close collaboration with the revision of the multidisciplinary guideline on delirium produced by the Dutch Order of Medical Specialists.

Background: To explore how clinical practice guidelines can be adapted to facilitate shared decision making., Methods: This was a qualitative key-informant study with group discussions and semi-structured interviews. First, 75 experts in guideline development or shared decision making participated in group discussions at two international conferences. Next, health professionals known as experts in depression or breast cancer, experts on clinical practice guidelines and/or shared decision making, and patient representatives were interviewed (N=20). Using illustrative treatment decisions on depression or breast cancer, we asked the interviewees to indicate as specifically as they could how guidelines could be used to facilitate shared decision making., Results: Interviewees suggested some generic strategies, namely to include a separate chapter on the importance of shared decision making, to use language that encourages patient involvement, and to develop patient versions of guidelines. Recommendation-specific strategies, related to specific decision points in the guideline, were also suggested: These include structuring the presentation of healthcare options to increase professionals' option awareness; structuring the deliberation process between professionals and patients; and providing relevant patient support tools embedded at important decision points in the guideline., Conclusions: This study resulted in an overview of strategies to adapt clinical practice guidelines to facilitate shared decision making. Some strategies seemed more contentious than others. Future research should assess the feasibility and impact of these strategies to make clinical practice guidelines more conducive to facilitate shared decision making.

The practice guideline 'Acute coronary syndrome' gives the general practitioner (GP) guidance on the diagnosis, treatment and long-term management of adults with (experienced) acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Not every patient with ACS presents with chest pain as the main symptom. The GP should evaluate every sign and symptom that may indicate ACS in the same way in both men and women. In patients with ACS the GP should immediately call an ambulance and the patient should be given oral salicylic acid 160-320 mg. If there is chest pain, sublingual nitroglycerine spray is indicated, if necessary followed by intravenous morphine or fentanyl. A normal ECG does not exclude ACS. Patients who have had symptoms indicative of ACS for less than 12 hours, and whose ECG shows abnormalities consistent with myocardial infarction with ST elevation should be referred to a cardiological intervention centre for percutaneous coronary intervention without delay whatever age they are. Patients who have symptoms indicative of ACS but who do not fulfil the above criteria may be given an emergency referral to a general hospital.

The guideline 'Gastric symptoms' covers the diagnosis and management of adults with dyspepsia in general practice, the prevention of unnecessary proton pump inhibitor use, and gastric protection during treatment with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including low-dose acetylsalicylic acid derivatives. During an initial episode of dyspepsia no distinction is made between reflux and ulcus symptoms because management is the same: start by prescribing an antacid and, if these provide insufficient effect, progress to a H₂-receptor antagonist and subsequently to a proton pump inhibitor (PPI). Testing for Helicobacter pylori should be performed in all patients with persistent or recurrent symptoms, preferably by using the monoclonal stool test. Gastroscopy should be performed with restraint in an H. pylori negative patient < 50 years with persistent or recurrent symptoms but no acute symptoms as there is only a very slight risk of malignancy. - Chronic PPI use is seen in 7% of the population and is associated with infections and osteoporosis. Phasing out of PPI use without good indication seems to be possible in 70% of patients.

The 'Thyroid disorders' guideline of the Dutch College of General Practitioners (NHG) provides recommendations for the diagnosis and management of hypothyroidism, hyperthyroidism and changes in the size of the thyroid gland, such as goitre and thyroid nodules. Hypothyroid patients younger than 60 years and without cardiac comorbidity should receive the full substitution dose of levothyroxine at treatment onset. In case of hypothyroidism in pregnancy, the levothyroxine dose should be immediately increased by 25%. All pregnant patients with (a history of) thyroid diseases should be tested for TSH-receptor antibodies at the start of the pregnancy. Management of subclinical hypo- and hyperthyroidism consists of monitoring laboratory values due to the great likelihood of normalization of the TSH value. All patients with a solitary nodule or a dominant nodule in a multinodular goitre should be referred to an endocrinologist for further investigation.

In general practice, lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men are usually not attributable to specific disorders. Prostate cancer is rarely the cause of LUTS. Education, counselling, and non-pharmaceutical advice form the basis for treatment of LUTS. Only when these measures do not relieve the patient's symptoms sufficiently, drug therapy could be considered. Alpha-blockers are the drugs of first choice and are also recommended when transurethral catheterization is needed for acute urinary retention. The effect of medication on LUTS is limited and largely based on placebo effect. The effectiveness of prostate cancer screening is a subject of debate; therefore patients asking for a PSA test should be informed about the benefits and harms of measuring PSA before having a test. A PSA value > 4 ng/ml, or abnormal results on digital rectal examination should prompt further diagnostic evaluation.

Introduction: Professional societies, like many other organizations, have recognized the need to use more rigorous processes to ensure that health care recommendations are informed by the best available research evidence. This is the last of a series of 14 articles that methodologists and researchers from around the world have prepared to advise guideline developers in respiratory and other diseases on how to achieve this. We updated a review of the literature on guideline adaptation, evaluation, and updating, focusing on four key questions., Methods: In this review we addressed the following questions. (1) Which high-quality guidelines on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are available? (2) How should guidelines be adapted to the user's context and culture? (3) How should the use of guidelines be evaluated in clinical practice? and (4) How should guidelines be efficiently kept up-to-date? We did not conduct systematic reviews ourselves. We relied on a literature review published in 2006 and on a manual produced by the ADAPTE Collaboration to inform our judgments, as well as our collective experience and workshop discussions., Results and Discussion: Guideline adaptation can be seen as an alternative to de novo development and as part of an implementation process, taking into consideration the user's own context. A systematic approach should be followed to ensure high quality of the resulting guidance. On the topic of COPD, many guidelines are available. Guidelines of the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease and of the American Thoracic Society and European Respiratory Society are particularly well-suited for adaptation. The adaptation process includes (1) definition of specific questions that need to be answered by the guideline; (2) assessment of guideline quality; (3) assessment of the clinical content, validity, acceptability, applicability, and transferability of the recommendations; and (4) decisions about adoption or adaptation of the recommendations. The use of the guidelines in practice can be measured with performance indicators. Adverse effects of strict adherence to guideline recommendations should be prevented, in particular when the improvement of patient outcomes is unclear. COPD guidelines should be updated at least every 2 years. Collaboration between COPD guideline developers is recommended to prevent duplication of effort.

Background: Patient participation is essential in developing high-quality guidelines but faces practical challenges. Evidence on timing, methods, evaluations, and outcomes of methodologies for patient participation in guideline development is lacking., Objective: To assess the feasibility of a wiki as a participatory tool for patients in the development of a guideline on infertility determined by (1) use of the wiki (number of page views and visitors), (2) benefits of the wiki (ie, number, content, and eligibility of the recommendations to be integrated into the guideline), and (3) patients' facilitators of and barriers to adoption, and the potential challenges to be overcome in improving this wiki., Methods: To obtain initial content for the wiki, we conducted in-depth interviews (n = 12) with infertile patients. Transcripts from the interviews were translated into 90 draft recommendations. These were presented on a wiki. Over 7 months, infertile patients were invited through advertisements or mailings to formulate new or modify existing recommendations. After modifying the recommendations, we asked patients to select their top 5 or top 3 recommendations for each of 5 sections on fertility care. Finally, the guideline development group assessed the eligibility of the final set of recommendations within the scope of the guideline. We used a multimethod evaluation strategy to assess the feasibility of the wiki as a participatory tool for patients in guideline development., Results: The wiki attracted 298 unique visitors, yielding 289 recommendations. We assessed the 21 recommendations ranked as the top 5 or top 3 for their eligibility for being integrated into the clinical practice guideline. The evaluation identified some challenges needed to be met to improve the wiki tool, concerning its ease of use, website content and layout, and characteristics of the wiki tool., Conclusions: The wiki is a promising and feasible participatory tool for patients in guideline development. A modified version of this tool including new modalities (eg, automatically limiting the number and length of recommendations, using a fixed format for recommendations, including a motivation page, and adding a continuous prioritization system) should be developed and evaluated in a patient-centered design.

Objective: To explore the role of a four-item Global Rating Scale (GRS) that could be used in place of the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II)., Study Design and Setting: A mixed four-factor design was used (User Type, Evaluation Type, Clinical Topic, Guideline). Participants were asked to read and evaluate a guideline using both the AGREE II draft and GRS or GRS only and to complete a series of questions regarding overall guideline quality, adoption, utility, and acceptability., Results: One GRS item varied as a function of User Type. Each item was a significant predictor of participants' outcome measures. All items were rated as useful by stakeholders. The GRS rating scores, outcome measures, and usefulness scores did not vary between the two Evaluation Type conditions. Correlations between the GRS and the outcome measures were stronger compared with those between the AGREE II draft and these measures., Conclusion: Although the GRS is less sensitive than the AGREE II in detecting differences in guideline quality as a function of User Type, its items did predict important outcome measures related to guideline adoption. The GRS may play a role in guideline evaluation, although further study is warranted., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Anxiety and anxiety disorders are addressed in the practice guideline of the Dutch College of General Practitioners (NHG). It is important to distinguish anxiety and anxiety disorders because of differences in prognosis and treatment. Several visits may be needed before the diagnosis is established. Treatment is based on a stepped-care model. For anxiety, psychoeducation and follow-up visits are often sufficient. For anxiety disorders with relatively low levels of distress or social dysfunctioning, self-help with supervision in addition to psychoeducation is helpful. If this is not effective or if there is severe distress or social dysfunctioning, cognitive behavioural therapy is the first choice treatment. An antidepressant could be started after or in addition to cognitive behavioural therapy. If an antidepressant is prescribed, SSRIs are preferred above tricyclic antidepressants because of the lesser risk of severe adverse effects.

The Dutch College of General Practitioners' (NHG) practice guideline 'The menopausal transition' provides general practitioners with guidelines for the management of menopausal symptoms in women from the age of 40 years. Patient history is vital in determining and assessing menopausal symptoms. Patient education is often sufficient to help women cope with their menopausal symptoms; medication is seldom required. Most systemic hormonal preparations increase the risk of venous thromboembolism, cardiovascular disease and breast cancer; these are therefore only indicated if vasomotor symptoms lead to serious limitations in daily life. Before the patient is given hormonal therapy, the cardiovascular risk profile and risk of venous thromboembolism and breast cancer should be assessed. Local hormonal treatment can be indicated for vaginal symptoms.

This guideline gives recommendations for the management of depression and depressive symptoms. The diagnosis of suspected depression requires a broad exploration of symptoms, sometimes over several visits. The guideline promotes self-management and patient empowerment during the healing process. The initial step in the treatment of depressive symptoms is patient education; patients with depression are supported with activity scheduling and are offered a short course of psychological treatment. If the initial treatment in patients with depression is not effective or if the depression is associated with severe suffering, severe social dysfunctioning or severe psychiatric comorbidity, psychotherapy or an antidepressant is recommended.

Background: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have become increasingly popular, and the methodology to develop guidelines has evolved enormously. However, little attention has been given to the updating process, in contrast to the appraisal of the available literature. We conducted an international survey to identify current practices in CPG updating and explored the need to standardize and improve the methods., Methods: We developed a questionnaire (28 items) based on a review of the existing literature about guideline updating and expert comments. We carried out the survey between March and July 2009, and it was sent by email to 106 institutions: 69 members of the Guidelines International Network who declared that they developed CPGs; 30 institutions included in the U.S. National Guideline Clearinghouse database that published more than 20 CPGs; and 7 institutions selected by an expert committee., Results: Forty-four institutions answered the questionnaire (42% response rate). In the final analysis, 39 completed questionnaires were included. Thirty-six institutions (92%) reported that they update their guidelines. Thirty-one institutions (86%) have a formal procedure for updating their guidelines, and 19 (53%) have a formal procedure for deciding when a guideline becomes out of date. Institutions describe the process as moderately rigorous (36%) or acknowledge that it could certainly be more rigorous (36%). Twenty-two institutions (61%) alert guideline users on their website when a guideline is older than three to five years or when there is a risk of being outdated. Twenty-five institutions (64%) support the concept of "living guidelines," which are continuously monitored and updated. Eighteen institutions (46%) have plans to design a protocol to improve their guideline-updating process, and 21 (54%) are willing to share resources with other organizations., Conclusions: Our study is the first to describe the process of updating CPGs among prominent guideline institutions across the world, providing a comprehensive picture of guideline updating. There is an urgent need to develop rigorous international standards for this process and to minimize duplication of effort internationally.

Background: Clinical guidelines are intended to improve healthcare. However, even if guidelines are excellent, their implementation is not assured. In subfertility care, the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) guidelines have been inventoried, and their methodological quality has been assessed. To improve the impact of the ESHRE guidelines and to improve European subfertility care, it is important to optimise the implementability of guidelines. We therefore investigated the implementation barriers of the ESHRE guideline with the best methodological quality and evaluated the used instrument for usability and feasibility., Methods: We reviewed the ESHRE guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of endometriosis to assess its implementability. We used an electronic version of the guideline implementability appraisal (eGLIA) instrument. This eGLIA tool consists of 31 questions grouped into 10 dimensions. Seven items address the guideline as a whole, and 24 items assess the individual recommendations in the guideline. The eGLIA instrument identifies factors that influence the implementability of the guideline recommendations. These factors can be divided into facilitators that promote implementation and barriers that oppose implementation. A panel of 10 experts from three European countries appraised all 36 recommendations of the guideline. They discussed discrepancies in a teleconference and completed a questionnaire to evaluate the ease of use and overall utility of the eGLIA instrument., Results: Two of the 36 guideline recommendations were straightforward to implement. Five recommendations were considered simply statements because they contained no actions. The remaining 29 recommendations were implementable with some adjustments. We found facilitators of the guideline implementability in the quality of decidability, presentation and formatting, apparent validity, and novelty or innovation of the recommendations. Vaguely defined actions, lack of facilities, immeasurable outcomes, and inflexibility within the recommendations formed barriers to implementation. The eGLIA instrument was generally useful and easy to use. However, assessment with the eGLIA instrument is very time-consuming., Conclusions: The ESHRE guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of endometriosis could be improved to facilitate its implementation in daily practice. The eGLIA instrument is a helpful tool for identifying obstacles to implementation of a guideline. However, we recommend a concise version of this instrument.

Background: Guidelines traditionally focus on the diagnosis and treatment of single diseases. As almost half of the patients with a chronic disease have more than one disease, the applicability of guidelines may be limited. The aim of this study was to assess the extent that guidelines address comorbidity and to assess the supporting evidence of recommendations related to comorbidity., Methodology/principal Findings: We conducted a systematic analysis of evidence-based guidelines focusing on four highly prevalent chronic conditions with a high impact on quality of life: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, depressive disorder, diabetes mellitus type 2, and osteoarthritis. Data were abstracted from each guideline on the extent that comorbidity was addressed (general comments, specific recommendations), the type of comorbidity discussed (concordant, discordant), and the supporting evidence of the comorbidity-related recommendations (level of evidence, translation of evidence). Of the 20 guidelines, 17 (85%) addressed the issue of comorbidity and 14 (70%) provided specific recommendations on comorbidity. In general, the guidelines included few recommendations on patients with comorbidity (mean 3 recommendations per guideline, range 0 to 26). Of the 59 comorbidity-related recommendations provided, 46 (78%) addressed concordant comorbidities, 8 (14%) discordant comorbidities, and for 5 (8%) the type of comorbidity was not specified. The strength of the supporting evidence was moderate for 25% (15/59) and low for 37% (22/59) of the recommendations. In addition, for 73% (43/59) of the recommendations the evidence was not adequately translated into the guidelines., Conclusions/significance: Our study showed that the applicability of current evidence-based guidelines to patients with comorbid conditions is limited. Most guidelines do not provide explicit guidance on treatment of patients with comorbidity, particularly for discordant combinations. Guidelines should be more explicit about the applicability of their recommendations to patients with comorbidity. Future clinical trials should also include patients with the most prevalent combinations of chronic conditions.

Background: We established a program of research to improve the development, reporting and evaluation of practice guidelines. We assessed the construct validity of the items and user's manual in the beta version of the AGREE II., Methods: We designed guideline excerpts reflecting high-and low-quality guideline content for 21 of the 23 items in the tool. We designed two study packages so that one low-quality and one high-quality version of each item were randomly assigned to each package. We randomly assigned 30 participants to one of the two packages. Participants reviewed and rated the guideline content according to the instructions of the user's manual and completed a survey assessing the manual., Results: In all cases, content designed to be of high quality was rated higher than low-quality content; in 18 of 21 cases, the differences were significant (p < 0.05). The manual was rated by participants as appropriate, easy to use, and helpful in differentiating guidelines of varying quality, with all scores above the mid-point of the seven-point scale. Considerable feedback was offered on how the items and manual of the beta-AGREE II could be improved., Interpretation: The validity of the items was established and the user's manual was rated as highly useful by users. We used these results and those of our study presented in part 1 to modify the items and user's manual. We recommend AGREE II (available at www.agreetrust.org) as the revised standard for guideline development, reporting and evaluation.

Background: We undertook research to improve the AGREE instrument, a tool used to evaluate guidelines. We tested a new seven-point scale, evaluated the usefulness of the original items in the instrument, investigated evidence to support shorter, tailored versions of the tool, and identified areas for improvement., Method: We report on one component of a larger study that used a mixed design with four factors (user type, clinical topic, guideline and condition). For the analysis reported in this article, we asked participants to read a guideline and use the AGREE items to evaluate it based on a seven-point scale, to complete three outcome measures related to adoption of the guideline, and to provide feedback on the instrument's usefulness and how to improve it., Results: Guideline developers gave lower-quality ratings than did clinicians or policy-makers. Five of six domains were significant predictors of participants' outcome measures (p < 0.05). All domains and items were rated as useful by stakeholders (mean scores > 4.0) with no significant differences by user type (p > 0.05). Internal consistency ranged between 0.64 and 0.89. Inter-rater reliability was satisfactory. We received feedback on how to improve the instrument., Interpretation: Quality ratings of the AGREE domains were significant predictors of outcome measures associated with guideline adoption: guideline endorsements, overall intentions to use guidelines, and overall quality of guidelines. All AGREE items were assessed as useful in determining whether a participant would use a guideline. No clusters of items were found more useful by some users than others. The measurement properties of the seven-point scale were promising. These data contributed to the refinements and release of the AGREE II.

Background: Urinary tract infections (UTI) are among the most common health problems seen in general practice. Evidence-based guidelines on UTI are available, but adherence to these guidelines varies widely among practitioners for reasons not well understood. The aim of this study was to identify the barriers to the implementation of a guideline on UTI perceived by Dutch general practitioners (GPs) and to explore interventions to overcome these barriers., Methods: A focus group study, including 13 GPs working in general practices in the Netherlands, was conducted. Key recommendations on diagnosis and treatment of uncomplicated UTI were selected from the guideline. Barriers to guideline adherence and possible interventions to address these barriers were discussed. The focus group session was audio-taped and transcribed verbatim. Barriers were classified according to an existing framework., Results: Lack of agreement with the recommendations, unavailable and inconvenient materials (i.e. dipslides), and organisational constraints were perceived as barriers for the diagnostic recommendations. Barriers to implementing the treatment recommendations were lack of applicability and organisational constraints related to the availability of drugs in pharmacies. Suggested interventions were to provide small group education to GPs and practice staff members, to improve organisation and coordination of care in out of hour services, to improve the availability of preferred dosages of drugs, and to pilot-test guidelines regionally., Conclusions: Despite sufficient knowledge of the recommendations on UTI, attitudinal and external barriers made it difficult to follow them in practice. The care concerning UTI could be optimized if these barriers are adequately addressed in implementation strategies. The feasibility and success of these strategies could be improved by involving the target group of the guideline in selecting useful interventions to address the barriers to implementation.

Objective: Patient involvement in medical decision making has been suggested to contribute to patients' satisfaction and better patient outcomes. Decision aids are particularly useful for preference-sensitive decisions. Ideally, these should be based on up-to-date evidence-based guidelines. The objective of this project was to develop a generic format for development and maintenance of decision aids based on evidence-based guidelines., Methods: Decision aids, evidence-based guidelines and IPDAS standards were used for development of a generic format for decision aids. Patient focus groups were used to assess patients' information needs, expectations, personal values and preferences for presentation of information., Results: We developed a generic format for decision aids and six specific decision aids derived from evidence-based guidelines. The decision aids were published on the Dutch national health care portal. Furthermore, we reached formal agreement on ownership and maintenance of the decision aids with all stakeholders. We achieved these results within 12 months., Conclusion: Our generic format facilitated the efficient production of specific decision aids based on evidence-based guidelines., Practice Implications: If guidelines and decision aids are developed in parallel, high-quality patient information can be produced within a short time frame. The process of development should include adequate patient involvement and a strategy for maintenance.

Background: Clinical guidelines are considered important instruments to improve quality in health care. Since 1998 the Royal Dutch Society for Physical Therapy (KNGF) produced evidence-based clinical guidelines, based on a standardized program. New developments in the field of guideline research raised the need to evaluate and update the KNGF guideline program. Purpose of this study is to compare different guideline development programs and review the KNGF guideline program for physical therapy in the Netherlands, in order to update the program., Method: Six international guideline development programs were selected, and the 23 criteria of the AGREE Instrument were used to evaluate the guideline programs. Information about the programs was retrieved from published handbooks of the organizations. Also, the Dutch program for guideline development in physical therapy was evaluated using the AGREE criteria. Further comparison the six guideline programs was carried out using the following elements of the guideline development processes: Structure and organization; Preparation and initiation; Development; Validation; Dissemination and implementation; Evaluation and update., Results: Compliance with the AGREE criteria of the guideline programs was high. Four programs addressed 22 AGREE criteria, and two programs addressed 20 AGREE criteria. The previous Dutch program for guideline development in physical therapy lacked in compliance with the AGREE criteria, meeting only 13 criteria. Further comparison showed that all guideline programs perform systematic literature searches to identify the available evidence. Recommendations are formulated and graded, based on evidence and other relevant factors. It is not clear how decisions in the development process are made. In particular, the process of translating evidence into practice recommendations can be improved., Conclusion: As a result of international developments and consensus, the described processes for developing clinical practice guidelines have much in common. The AGREE criteria are common basis for the development of guidelines, although it is not clear how final decisions are made. Detailed comparison of the different guideline programs was used for updating the Dutch program. As a result the updated KNGF program complied with 22 AGREE criteria. International discussion is continuing and will be used for further improvement of the program.

Background: Clinical practice guidelines should be based on the best available evidence. However, this evidence is often incomplete, controversial, or lacking. Other considerations beyond the evidence are therefore needed to be able to formulate specific and applicable recommendations for clinical practice., Objective: The aim of this study is to obtain consensus among experts about a set of domains and items covering the most relevant 'other considerations' to formulate recommendations in evidence-based guideline development., Methods: An initial list of 10 domains and 49 items for a systematic and considered judgement of scientific evidence was generated from the literature. A panel of Dutch experts in guideline development tested this list using a two-round Delphi consensus technique. Each expert was asked to independently score the relevance of the items on a 4-point Likert scale, ranging from 'very important' to 'not important'. The final list consisted of items that were included by at least 60% consensus., Results: Twenty-eight experts participated in the first Delphi round and 21 of them in the second round. High scoring domains were 'clinical relevance', 'safety', and 'availability of resources'. There was consensus about the relevance of 37 items. The domain 'conflicts of interest by industry' was excluded because of lack of consensus., Conclusion: This is the first formal consensus approach towards structuring the considered judgement process in formulating recommendations in clinical guidelines. The final list of items can be used to facilitate the process of guideline development. The next step is to test the practical usefulness and applicability of this list in guideline development.

Purpose: The development and updating of high-quality clinical practice guidelines require substantial resources. Many guideline programmes throughout the world are using similar strategies to achieve similar goals, resulting in many guidelines on the same topic. One method of using resources more efficiently and avoiding unnecessary duplication of effort would be to adapt existing guidelines. The aim was to review the literature on adaptation of guidelines and to propose a systematic approach for adaptation of guidelines., Data Sources: We selected and reviewed reports describing the methods and results of adaptation of guidelines from those found by searching Medline, Internet, and reference lists of relevant papers. On the basis of this review and our experience in guideline development, we proposed a conceptual framework and procedure for adaptation of guidelines., Results: Adaptation of guidelines is performed either as an alternative to de novo guideline development or to improve guideline implementation through local tailoring of an international or national guideline. However, no validated process for the adaptation of guidelines produced in one cultural and organizational setting for use in another (i.e. trans-contextual adaptation) was found in the literature. The proposed procedure is a stepwise approach to trans-contextual adaptation, including searching for existing guidelines, quality appraisal, detailed analysis of the coherence between the evidence and the recommendations, and adaptation of the recommendations to the target context of use, taking into account the organization of the health care system and cultural context., Conclusions: Trans-contextual adaptation of guidelines is increasingly being considered as an alternative to de novo guideline development. The proposed approach should be validated and evaluated to determine if it can reduce duplication of effort and inefficient use of resources, although guaranteeing a high-quality product, compared with de novo development.

Objective: Clinical practice guidelines are widely used as effective tools for improving the management of patients with cancer. However, there is increasing concern about variation in guideline quality. In this study we identified predictors for high-quality guidelines in oncology., Design: The quality scores for 32 oncology guidelines from 13 countries were determined by four independent appraisers using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument., Main Measure: : The contribution to the quality score of six characteristics of guidelines and three of guideline developing organizations was then assessed using analysis of variance and stepwise linear regression analysis., Results: Some guideline and organizational characteristics were shown to be responsible for a large part of the variations in quality scores. The availability of background information was the strongest predictor of quality with an explained variance ranging from 17% ("Applicability") to 67% ("Rigour of development"). High-quality guidelines were more often produced by government-supported organizations and/or within a structured, coordinated programme. The other characteristics (publication year, type of guideline, format, level of care, and scope) were not independent predictors of quality., Conclusions: Guidelines should provide more explicit information about the context of their development and methods used in order to improve their quality and thus encourage their use in clinical practice.

Objectives: To identify predictors of high-quality clinical practice guidelines., Methods: A total of 86 guidelines from 11 countries were assessed by four independent appraisers per guideline using the AGREE instrument (23 items). Six aspects of guideline development were considered to explain the variation in quality scores: care level (primary/secondary care), scope (diagnosis/treatment), type of guideline (new/update), year of publication, type of agency (governmental/professional), and whether the guideline was produced within a structured and coordinated program., Results: Guidelines produced within a guideline program and by governmental agencies had higher scores than their counterparts. Differences in the applicability of the guidelines could not be explained by the variables studied., Conclusion: To ensure high quality, clinical guidelines should be produced within a structured and coordinated program. Professional organizations or specialist societies that aim to develop guidelines may adopt quality criteria from leading guideline agencies.

Objective: To describe systematically the structures and working methods of guideline programs., Design: Descriptive survey using a questionnaire with 32 items based on a framework derived from the literature. Answers were tabulated and checked by participants., Study Participants: Key informants of 18 prominent guideline organizations in the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and nine European countries., Main Outcome Measures: History, aims, methodology, products and deliveries, implementation, evaluation, procedure for updating guidelines, and future plans., Results: Most guideline programs were established to improve the quality and effectiveness of health care. Most use electronic databases to collect evidence and systematic reviews to analyze the evidence. Consensus procedures are used when evidence is lacking. All guidelines are reviewed before publication. Authorization is commonly used to endorse guidelines. All guidelines are furnished with tools for application and the Internet is widely used for dissemination. Implementation strategies vary among different organizations, with larger organizations leaving this to local organizations. Almost all have a quality assurance system for their programs. Half of the programs do not have formal update procedures., Conclusions: Principles of evidence-based medicine dominate current guideline programs. Recent programs are benefiting from the methodology created by long-standing programs. Differences are found in the emphasis on dissemination and implementation, probably due to differences in health care systems and political and cultural factors. International collaboration should be encouraged to improve guideline methodology and to globalize the collection and analysis of evidence needed for guideline development.

Background: The use of clinical guidelines in general practice is often limited. Research on barriers to guideline adherence usually focuses on attitudinal factors. Factors linked to the guideline itself are much less studied., Aim: To identify characteristics of effective clinical guidelines for general practice, and to explore whether these differ between therapeutic and diagnostic recommendations., Design of Study: Analysis of performance data from an audit study of 200 general practitioners (GPs) in The Netherlands conducted in 1997., Setting: Panel of 12 GPs in The Netherlands who were familiar with guideline methodology., Method: A set of 12 attributes, including six potential facilitators and six potential barriers to guideline use, was formulated. The panel assessed the presence of these attributes in 96 guideline recommendations formulated by the Dutch College of General Practitioners. The attributes of recommendations with high compliance rates (70% to 100%) were compared with those with low compliance rates (0% to 60%)., Results: Recommendations with high compliance rates were to a lesser extent those requiring new skills (7% compared with 22% in recommendations with low compliance rates), were less often part of a complex decision tree (12% versus 25%), were more compatible with existing norms and values in practice (87% versus 76%), and more often supported with evidence (47% versus 31%). For diagnostic recommendations, the ease of applying them and the potential (negative) reactions of patients were more relevant than for therapeutic recommendations., Conclusion: To bridge the gap between research and practice, the evidence as well as the applicability should be considered when formulating recommendations. If the recommendations are not compatible with existing norms and values, not easy to follow or require new knowledge and skills, appropriate implementation strategies should be designed to ensure change in daily practice.