OBJECTIVE: To propose a taxonomy and framework that identifies and presents actionable statements in guidelines. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We took an iterative approach reviewing case studies of guidelines produced by the World Health Organization and the American Society of Hematology to develop an initial conceptual framework. We then tested it using randomly selected recommendations from published guidelines addressing COVID-19 from different organizations, evaluated its results, and refined it before retesting. The urgency and availability of evidence for development of these recommendations varied. We consulted with experts in research methodology and guideline developers to improve the final framework. RESULTS: The resulting taxonomy and framework distinguishes five types of actional statements: formal recommendations; research recommendations; good practice statements; implementation considerations, tools and tips; and informal recommendations. These statements should respond to a priori established criteria and require a clear structure and recognizable presentation in a guideline. Most importantly, this framework identifies informal recommendations that differ from formal recommendations by how they consider evidence and in their development process. CONCLUSION: The identification, standardization and explicit labelling of actionable statements according to the framework may support guideline developers to create actionable statements with clear intent, avoid informal recommendations and improve their understanding and implementation by users.
- MeSH
- COVID-19 * epidemiologie MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- publikace MeSH
- Světová zdravotnická organizace MeSH
- výzkumný projekt MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To develop a digital communication tool to improve the implementation of up-to-date COVID-19 recommendations. Specifically, to improve patient, caregiver and public understanding of healthcare recommendations on prevention, diagnoses and treatment. METHODS: Multi-stakeholder engagement design. In conjunction with the COVID-19 Recommendations and Gateway to Contextualization RecMap, we co-developed a stakeholder prioritization, drafting and editing process to enhance guideline communication and understanding. RESULTS: This paper presents the multi-stakeholder development process with three distinct plain language recommendation formats: formal recommendation, good practice statement, and additional guidance. Our case study of COVID-19 plain language recommendations PLRs addresses both public health interventions (e.g., vaccination, face masks) and clinical interventions (e.g., home pulse oximetry). CONCLUSION: This paper presents a novel approach to engaging stakeholders in improving the communication and understanding of published guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic.
- MeSH
- COVID-19 * epidemiologie prevence a kontrola MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- masky MeSH
- osoby pečující o pacienty MeSH
- pandemie prevence a kontrola MeSH
- veřejné zdravotnictví MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
CONTEXT: The current impact of haematuria investigations on health care organisations is significant. There is currently no consensus on how to investigate patients with haematuria. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the incidence of bladder cancer, upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC), and renal cell carcinoma (RCC) among patients undergoing investigation for haematuria and identify any risk factors for bladder cancer, UTUC, and RCC (BUR). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Medline, Embase, and Cochrane controlled trials databases and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for all relevant publications from January 1, 2000 to June 2021 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Prospective, retrospective, and cross-sectional studies with a minimum population of 50 patients with haematuria were considered for the review. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of 44 studies were included. The total number of participants was 229701. The pooled incidence rate for urothelial bladder cancer was 17% (95% confidence interval [CI] 14-20%) for visible haematuria (VH) and 3.3% (95% CI 2.45-4.3%) for nonvisible haematuria (NVH). The pooled incidence rate for RCC was 2% (95% CI 1-2%) for VH and 0.58% (95% CI 0.42-0.77%) for NVH. The pooled incidence rate for UTUC was 0.75% (95% CI 0.4-1.2%) for VH and 0.17% (95% CI 0.081-0.299%) for NVH. On sensitivity analysis, the proportions of males (risk ratio [RR] 1.14, 95% CI 1.10-1.17 for VH; 1.54, 95% CI 1.34-1.78 for NVH; p < 0.00001; moderate certainty evidence) and individuals with a smoking history (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.24-1.61 for VH; 1.53, 95% CI 1.36-1.72 for NVH; p < 0.00001; moderate certainty evidence) appeared to be higher in BUR than in non-BUR groups. CONCLUSIONS: Male gender and smoking history are risk factors for BUR cancer in haematuria, with bladder cancer being the commonest cancer. The incidence of RCC and UTUC in NVH is low. The review serves as a reference standard for future policy-making on investigation of haematuria by global organisations. PATIENT SUMMARY: Our review shows that male gender and smoking history are risk factors for cancers of the bladder, kidney, and ureter. The review also provides information on the proportion of patients who have cancer when they have blood in their urine (haematuria) and will allow policy-makers to decide on the most appropriate method for investigating haematuria in patients.
- MeSH
- hematurie epidemiologie etiologie MeSH
- incidence MeSH
- karcinom z přechodných buněk * komplikace epidemiologie MeSH
- karcinom z renálních buněk * komplikace epidemiologie MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- nádory ledvin * komplikace epidemiologie MeSH
- nádory močového měchýře * komplikace epidemiologie MeSH
- prospektivní studie MeSH
- průřezové studie MeSH
- retrospektivní studie MeSH
- rizikové faktory MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé MeSH
- mužské pohlaví MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- přehledy MeSH
- systematický přehled MeSH
OBJECTIVES: To describe divergence between actionable statements issued by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) guideline developers cataloged on the "COVID-19 Recommendations and Gateway to Contextualization" platform. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We defined divergence as at least two comparable actionable statements with different explicit judgments of strength, direction, or subgroup consideration of the population or intervention. We applied a content analysis to compare guideline development methods for a sample of diverging statements and to evaluate factors associated with divergence. RESULTS: Of the 138 guidelines evaluated, 85 (62%) contained at least one statement that diverged from another guideline. We identified 223 diverging statements in these 85 guidelines. We grouped statements into 66 clusters. Each cluster addressed the same population, intervention, and comparator group or just similar interventions. Clinical practice statements were more likely to diverge in an explicit judgment of strength or direction compared to public health statements. Statements were more likely to diverge in strength than direction. The date of publication, used evidence, interpretation of evidence, and contextualization considerations were associated with divergence. CONCLUSION: More than half of the assessed guidelines issued at least one diverging statement. This study helps in understanding the types of differences between guidelines issuing comparable statements and factors associated with their divergence.
- MeSH
- COVID-19 * epidemiologie MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- veřejné zdravotnictví * MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- práce podpořená grantem MeSH
