PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Jako S Burgers

Publications and source records attributed to Jako S Burgers.

9 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Considered judgement in evidence-based guideline development.

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.

Consensus↗
PubMed2006

Adaptation of clinical guidelines: literature review and proposition for a framework and procedure.

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.

Diffusion of Innovation↗
PubMed2005

Predictors of high quality clinical practice guidelines: examples in oncology.

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.

Analysis of Variance↗
PubMed2003

Characteristics of high-quality guidelines: evaluation of 86 clinical guidelines developed in ten European countries and Canada.

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.

Canada↗
PubMed2003

Towards evidence-based clinical practice: an international survey of 18 clinical guideline programs.

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.

Consensus↗
PubMed2003

Characteristics of effective clinical guidelines for general practice.

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.

Family Practice↗
PubMed2002

Inside guidelines: comparative analysis of recommendations and evidence in diabetes guidelines from 13 countries.

OBJECTIVE: To compare guidelines on diabetes from different countries in order to examine whether differences in recommendations could be explained by use of different research evidence. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We analyzed 15 clinical guidelines on type 2 diabetes from 13 countries using qualitative methods to compare the recommendations and bibliometric methods to measure the extent of overlap in citations used by different guidelines. A further qualitative analysis of recommendations and cited evidence for two specific issues in diabetes care explored the apparent discrepancy between recommendations and evidence. RESULTS: The recommendations made in the guidelines were in agreement about the general management of type 2 diabetes, with some important differences in treatment details. There was little overlap in evidence cited by the guidelines, with 18% (185/1,033) of citations shared with any other guideline, and only 10 studies (1%) appearing in six or more guidelines. The measurable overlap in evidence between guidelines increases if multiple publications from the same study and the use of reviews are taken into account. Research originating from the U.S. predominated (40% of citations); however, nearly all (11/12) guidelines were significantly more likely to cite evidence originating from their own countries. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the variation in cited evidence and preferential citation of evidence from a guideline's country of origin, we found a high degree of international consensus in recommendations made for the clinical care of type 2 diabetes. The influence of professional bodies such as the American Diabetes Association may be an important factor in explaining international consensus. Globalization of recommended management of diabetes is not a simple consequence of the globalization of research evidence.

Australia↗