Development of an international glossary for clinical guidelines collaboration
Language English Country United States Media print-electronic
Document type Review, Journal Article
PubMed
37019344
DOI
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.03.026
PII: S0895-4356(23)00077-X
Knihovny.cz E-resources
- Keywords
- Clinical, Collaboration, Delphi, Development, Glossary, Guideline, International, Practice, Validation,
- MeSH
- Delphi Technique MeSH
- Communication * MeSH
- Consensus MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Check Tag
- Humans MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Review MeSH
OBJECTIVES: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are often created through collaboration among organizations. The use of inconsistent terminology may cause poor communication and delays. This study aimed to develop a glossary of terms related to collaboration in guideline development. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A literature review of collaborative guidelines was performed to develop an initial list of terms related to guideline collaboration. The list of terms was presented to the members of the Guideline International Network Guidelines Collaboration Working Group, who provided presumptive definitions for each term and proposed additional terms to be included. The revised list was subsequently reviewed by an international, multidisciplinary panel of expert stakeholders. Recommendations received during this pre-Delphi review were implemented to augment an initial draft glossary. The glossary was then critically evaluated and refined through two rounds of Delphi surveys and a virtual consensus meeting with all panel members as Delphi participants. RESULTS: Forty-nine experts participated in the pre-Delphi survey, and 44 participated in the two-round Delphi process. Consensus was reached for 37 terms and definitions. CONCLUSION: Uptake and utilization of this guideline collaboration glossary by key organizations and stakeholder groups may facilitate collaboration among guideline-producing organizations by improving communication, minimizing conflicts, and increasing guideline development efficiency.
Adelaide Health Technology Assessment University of Adelaide Australia
American Academy of Sleep Medicine Darien IL USA
American College of Rheumatology OH USA; American College of Rheumatology Atlanta GA USA
American Diabetes Association VA USA
American Society for Radiation Oncology VA USA
Association of Anaesthetists London UK
Canadian Thoracic Society Ottawa Ontario Canada
Clinical Practice Guidelines American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Jacksonville FL USA
Department of Dermatology Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine Chicago IL USA
Department of Endocrinology Odense University Hospital Odense Denmark
Department of Family Medicine and Population Health Virginia Commonwealth University VA USA
Department of Health Research Methods Evidence and Impact McMaster University Hamilton Canada
Department of Neurosurgery Hospital Ramón y Cajal Madrid Spain
Department of Pathology University of Utah and ARUP Laboratories Salt Lake City UT
Department of Pulmonology Botucatu Medical School UNESP São Paulo Brazil
Department of Surgery Yale University School of Medicine New Haven CT USA
Division of Vascular Surgery Kootenai Clinic Coeur d'Alene ID USA
European Association of Urology Guidelines Office Arnhem The Netherlands
Head of Quality Improvement Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists London UK
Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania PA USA
Institute of Health Economics Edmonton Alberta Canada
Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes Brussels Belgium
Royal College of Physicians London UK
Royal Dutch Society for Physical Therapy The Netherlands
Scientific Council for Health Care Luxembourg
St George's University Hospitals National Health Service Foundation Trust London UK
The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada Ottawa Canada
University of Washington WA USA
Warwick Clinical Trials Unit Warwick Medical School University of Warwick Coventry UK
References provided by Crossref.org