Elizabeth Ann Bryant, Rae Thomas, Sharon Lea Sanders
Objective
We compared the reporting of patient and public involvement (PPI) in the development of clinical practice guidelines (CPG) with the guidance regarding PPI in the auspicing organisation's guideline development manual.
Methods
We examined the PPI guidance provided by seven guideline auspicing organisations from four countries, that provided guideline development manuals referencing PPI inclusion in guideline development. We determined whether the auspicing organisations provided guidance on four aspects of PPI critical to understanding the process; (i) which patients and public (PPs) to involve, (ii) how to recruit PPs, (iii) where in the process to involve PPs, and (iv) how PPs should contribute to guideline development. We assessed a random selection of 24 CPGs affiliated with these organisations for consistency of reporting of PPI with the guidance provided.
Results
Half (50%) of the auspicing organisations' guideline development manuals provided guidance on all four aspects of PPI. Five of the 24 CPGs (21%) affiliated with auspicing organisations that made reference to PPI in guideline development did not report PPI in their development. Although 79% (19/24) of guidelines did report PPI in their development, only half (10/19) reported PPI that was consistent with the auspicing organisations guidance.
Conclusion
Auspicing organisations often do not provide guidance to guideline developers on critical aspects of PPI. Even when auspicing organisations do provide guidance, CPG developers may not report PPI, and/or not report PPI consistent with that guidance. It is unknown whether this is because PPI was not conducted, or because it was conducted, but not reported, or was reported incompletely.
Practice Implications
Auspicing organisations need to improve guidance on PPI in guideline development, and CPG developers need to report PPI more diligently when it is done. Understanding guideline developers' motivations for PPI implementation and/or reporting is critical to facilitate improvement in this area.
{"title":"Patient and Public Involvement Reporting Consistency: Analysis of 24 Clinical Practice Guidelines From 4 Countries","authors":"Elizabeth Ann Bryant, Rae Thomas, Sharon Lea Sanders","doi":"10.1002/gin2.70061","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.70061","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objective</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We compared the reporting of patient and public involvement (PPI) in the development of clinical practice guidelines (CPG) with the guidance regarding PPI in the auspicing organisation's guideline development manual.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We examined the PPI guidance provided by seven guideline auspicing organisations from four countries, that provided guideline development manuals referencing PPI inclusion in guideline development. We determined whether the auspicing organisations provided guidance on four aspects of PPI critical to understanding the process; (i) which patients and public (PPs) to involve, (ii) how to recruit PPs, (iii) where in the process to involve PPs, and (iv) how PPs should contribute to guideline development. We assessed a random selection of 24 CPGs affiliated with these organisations for consistency of reporting of PPI with the guidance provided.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Half (50%) of the auspicing organisations' guideline development manuals provided guidance on all four aspects of PPI. Five of the 24 CPGs (21%) affiliated with auspicing organisations that made reference to PPI in guideline development did not report PPI in their development. Although 79% (19/24) of guidelines did report PPI in their development, only half (10/19) reported PPI that was consistent with the auspicing organisations guidance.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Auspicing organisations often do not provide guidance to guideline developers on critical aspects of PPI. Even when auspicing organisations do provide guidance, CPG developers may not report PPI, and/or not report PPI consistent with that guidance. It is unknown whether this is because PPI was not conducted, or because it was conducted, but not reported, or was reported incompletely.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Practice Implications</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Auspicing organisations need to improve guidance on PPI in guideline development, and CPG developers need to report PPI more diligently when it is done. Understanding guideline developers' motivations for PPI implementation and/or reporting is critical to facilitate improvement in this area.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"3 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.70061","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146139276","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Elizabeth Ann Bryant, Rae Thomas, Sharon Lea Sanders
Objective
We compared the reporting of patient and public involvement (PPI) in the development of clinical practice guidelines (CPG) with the guidance regarding PPI in the auspicing organisation's guideline development manual.
Methods
We examined the PPI guidance provided by seven guideline auspicing organisations from four countries, that provided guideline development manuals referencing PPI inclusion in guideline development. We determined whether the auspicing organisations provided guidance on four aspects of PPI critical to understanding the process; (i) which patients and public (PPs) to involve, (ii) how to recruit PPs, (iii) where in the process to involve PPs, and (iv) how PPs should contribute to guideline development. We assessed a random selection of 24 CPGs affiliated with these organisations for consistency of reporting of PPI with the guidance provided.
Results
Half (50%) of the auspicing organisations' guideline development manuals provided guidance on all four aspects of PPI. Five of the 24 CPGs (21%) affiliated with auspicing organisations that made reference to PPI in guideline development did not report PPI in their development. Although 79% (19/24) of guidelines did report PPI in their development, only half (10/19) reported PPI that was consistent with the auspicing organisations guidance.
Conclusion
Auspicing organisations often do not provide guidance to guideline developers on critical aspects of PPI. Even when auspicing organisations do provide guidance, CPG developers may not report PPI, and/or not report PPI consistent with that guidance. It is unknown whether this is because PPI was not conducted, or because it was conducted, but not reported, or was reported incompletely.
Practice Implications
Auspicing organisations need to improve guidance on PPI in guideline development, and CPG developers need to report PPI more diligently when it is done. Understanding guideline developers' motivations for PPI implementation and/or reporting is critical to facilitate improvement in this area.
{"title":"Patient and Public Involvement Reporting Consistency: Analysis of 24 Clinical Practice Guidelines From 4 Countries","authors":"Elizabeth Ann Bryant, Rae Thomas, Sharon Lea Sanders","doi":"10.1002/gin2.70061","DOIUrl":"10.1002/gin2.70061","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objective</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We compared the reporting of patient and public involvement (PPI) in the development of clinical practice guidelines (CPG) with the guidance regarding PPI in the auspicing organisation's guideline development manual.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We examined the PPI guidance provided by seven guideline auspicing organisations from four countries, that provided guideline development manuals referencing PPI inclusion in guideline development. We determined whether the auspicing organisations provided guidance on four aspects of PPI critical to understanding the process; (i) which patients and public (PPs) to involve, (ii) how to recruit PPs, (iii) where in the process to involve PPs, and (iv) how PPs should contribute to guideline development. We assessed a random selection of 24 CPGs affiliated with these organisations for consistency of reporting of PPI with the guidance provided.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Half (50%) of the auspicing organisations' guideline development manuals provided guidance on all four aspects of PPI. Five of the 24 CPGs (21%) affiliated with auspicing organisations that made reference to PPI in guideline development did not report PPI in their development. Although 79% (19/24) of guidelines did report PPI in their development, only half (10/19) reported PPI that was consistent with the auspicing organisations guidance.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Auspicing organisations often do not provide guidance to guideline developers on critical aspects of PPI. Even when auspicing organisations do provide guidance, CPG developers may not report PPI, and/or not report PPI consistent with that guidance. It is unknown whether this is because PPI was not conducted, or because it was conducted, but not reported, or was reported incompletely.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Practice Implications</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Auspicing organisations need to improve guidance on PPI in guideline development, and CPG developers need to report PPI more diligently when it is done. Understanding guideline developers' motivations for PPI implementation and/or reporting is critical to facilitate improvement in this area.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"3 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.70061","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146139275","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
To map the available evidence informing the care and management of people living with motor neurone disease (MND), including evidence pertaining to carers, asymptomatic genetic carriers, family, friends and healthcare professionals caring for people with MND.
Introduction
MND is a devasting neurodegenerative disease that has no cure and eventually leads to paralysis, progressive speech difficulties and respiratory failure. There are a plethora of interventions to support people living with MND, however, information regarding these interventions is often not organised in a manner that best supports the MND community. An evidence and gap map will provide a visual presentation that highlights the existing evidence that is available to support specific interventions, and indicate where there is no evidence. This will help inform future guideline and research efforts.
Inclusion Criteria
Studies if they describe care interventions for people living with MND, carers, asymptomatic genetic carriers, family, friends and healthcare professionals caring for people with MND. Peer-reviewed randomised controlled trials, and nonrandomised studies of interventions, systematic reviews and qualitative studies describing the experience of an intervention will be included.
Methods
An evidence and gap map will be conducted according to Campbell guidance and JBI guidance for scoping reviews. A comprehensive search of academic databases and clinical trial registries will be performed to identify eligible studies. An evidence inclusion framework has been developed with members of the MND community. Data screening and extraction will be independently performed by two reviewers. The evidence and gap map will be presented using EPPI Reviewer.
Review Registration
This protocol has been uploaded to the Australian Motor Neurone Disease (MND) Guideline Open Science Framework page (https://osf.io/c2ezm/).
{"title":"Mapping Evidence on Care Interventions for People Living With Motor Neurone Disease: A Protocol for a Living Evidence and Gap Map","authors":"Danielle Pollock, Cindy Stern, Melissa Bond, Timothy Hugh Barker, Sabira Hasanoff, Grace Holland, Ines Semendric, Anna Fragkoudi, Nipun Shrestha, Sebastian Cole Facchin-Young, Abigail Molly Day-Sharman, Lemma Negesa Bulto, Lara Stollery, Sitasma Sharma, Camille Schubert, Lynne Giles, Jay Beasley-Hall, Tracy Merlin, Julie Labra, Steve Vucic, Taryn Hunt, Zachary Munn","doi":"10.1002/gin2.70062","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.70062","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objective</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To map the available evidence informing the care and management of people living with motor neurone disease (MND), including evidence pertaining to carers, asymptomatic genetic carriers, family, friends and healthcare professionals caring for people with MND.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>MND is a devasting neurodegenerative disease that has no cure and eventually leads to paralysis, progressive speech difficulties and respiratory failure. There are a plethora of interventions to support people living with MND, however, information regarding these interventions is often not organised in a manner that best supports the MND community. An evidence and gap map will provide a visual presentation that highlights the existing evidence that is available to support specific interventions, and indicate where there is no evidence. This will help inform future guideline and research efforts.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Inclusion Criteria</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Studies if they describe care interventions for people living with MND, carers, asymptomatic genetic carriers, family, friends and healthcare professionals caring for people with MND. Peer-reviewed randomised controlled trials, and nonrandomised studies of interventions, systematic reviews and qualitative studies describing the experience of an intervention will be included.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>An evidence and gap map will be conducted according to Campbell guidance and JBI guidance for scoping reviews. A comprehensive search of academic databases and clinical trial registries will be performed to identify eligible studies. An evidence inclusion framework has been developed with members of the MND community. Data screening and extraction will be independently performed by two reviewers. The evidence and gap map will be presented using EPPI Reviewer.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Review Registration</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This protocol has been uploaded to the Australian Motor Neurone Disease (MND) Guideline Open Science Framework page (https://osf.io/c2ezm/).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"3 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.70062","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146135864","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
To map the available evidence informing the care and management of people living with motor neurone disease (MND), including evidence pertaining to carers, asymptomatic genetic carriers, family, friends and healthcare professionals caring for people with MND.
Introduction
MND is a devasting neurodegenerative disease that has no cure and eventually leads to paralysis, progressive speech difficulties and respiratory failure. There are a plethora of interventions to support people living with MND, however, information regarding these interventions is often not organised in a manner that best supports the MND community. An evidence and gap map will provide a visual presentation that highlights the existing evidence that is available to support specific interventions, and indicate where there is no evidence. This will help inform future guideline and research efforts.
Inclusion Criteria
Studies if they describe care interventions for people living with MND, carers, asymptomatic genetic carriers, family, friends and healthcare professionals caring for people with MND. Peer-reviewed randomised controlled trials, and nonrandomised studies of interventions, systematic reviews and qualitative studies describing the experience of an intervention will be included.
Methods
An evidence and gap map will be conducted according to Campbell guidance and JBI guidance for scoping reviews. A comprehensive search of academic databases and clinical trial registries will be performed to identify eligible studies. An evidence inclusion framework has been developed with members of the MND community. Data screening and extraction will be independently performed by two reviewers. The evidence and gap map will be presented using EPPI Reviewer.
Review Registration
This protocol has been uploaded to the Australian Motor Neurone Disease (MND) Guideline Open Science Framework page (https://osf.io/c2ezm/).
{"title":"Mapping Evidence on Care Interventions for People Living With Motor Neurone Disease: A Protocol for a Living Evidence and Gap Map","authors":"Danielle Pollock, Cindy Stern, Melissa Bond, Timothy Hugh Barker, Sabira Hasanoff, Grace Holland, Ines Semendric, Anna Fragkoudi, Nipun Shrestha, Sebastian Cole Facchin-Young, Abigail Molly Day-Sharman, Lemma Negesa Bulto, Lara Stollery, Sitasma Sharma, Camille Schubert, Lynne Giles, Jay Beasley-Hall, Tracy Merlin, Julie Labra, Steve Vucic, Taryn Hunt, Zachary Munn","doi":"10.1002/gin2.70062","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.70062","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objective</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To map the available evidence informing the care and management of people living with motor neurone disease (MND), including evidence pertaining to carers, asymptomatic genetic carriers, family, friends and healthcare professionals caring for people with MND.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>MND is a devasting neurodegenerative disease that has no cure and eventually leads to paralysis, progressive speech difficulties and respiratory failure. There are a plethora of interventions to support people living with MND, however, information regarding these interventions is often not organised in a manner that best supports the MND community. An evidence and gap map will provide a visual presentation that highlights the existing evidence that is available to support specific interventions, and indicate where there is no evidence. This will help inform future guideline and research efforts.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Inclusion Criteria</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Studies if they describe care interventions for people living with MND, carers, asymptomatic genetic carriers, family, friends and healthcare professionals caring for people with MND. Peer-reviewed randomised controlled trials, and nonrandomised studies of interventions, systematic reviews and qualitative studies describing the experience of an intervention will be included.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>An evidence and gap map will be conducted according to Campbell guidance and JBI guidance for scoping reviews. A comprehensive search of academic databases and clinical trial registries will be performed to identify eligible studies. An evidence inclusion framework has been developed with members of the MND community. Data screening and extraction will be independently performed by two reviewers. The evidence and gap map will be presented using EPPI Reviewer.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Review Registration</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This protocol has been uploaded to the Australian Motor Neurone Disease (MND) Guideline Open Science Framework page (https://osf.io/c2ezm/).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"3 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.70062","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146135796","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Sara Ibrahim, Mark Loeb, Jessica Bartoszko, Maryam Ghadimi, Gordon Guyatt, Benedikt Huttner, Alfonso Iorio, Dominik Mertz, Lorenzo Moja, Gabriel Rada, Pilar Ramon-Pardo, Ludovic Reveiz, Gerard Wright, Nancy Santesso, Romina Brignardello-Petersen
Introduction
Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a widely recognized threat to global health, mainly driven by the inappropriate use of antimicrobials. Recommendations from evidence-based practice guidelines (EBPGs) can promote appropriate antimicrobial use. Currently, no guidance exists for considering AMR in EBPGs. This is the protocol for two studies that aim to (1) develop a checklist of AMR considerations for EBPGs and (2) conduct a case study to evaluate existing EBPGs regarding the extent to which AMR is considered among other methodological assessments.
Methods
Using the Delphi technique, we will consult with individuals from four interest-holder groups to develop and refine a checklist of AMR considerations for EBPGs. To assess EBPGs, we will search various databases for guidelines on four prioritized syndromes (i.e., community-acquired pneumonia, urinary tract infection, skin and soft tissue infections and exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). We will screen articles in duplicate and in stages to include EBPGs for the prioritized syndromes and will use piloted data extraction forms to extract characteristics of the EBPGs. For each EBPG, we will evaluate whether AMR was considered (using the developed checklist), its trustworthiness (i.e., methodological quality) (using the modified National Guideline Clearinghouse Extent of Adherence to Trustworthy Standards instrument) and its adaptability (using items from existing adaptability frameworks).
Discussion
This work will develop a checklist of AMR considerations for EBPGs and evaluate a subsequent sample of EBPGs to investigate the extent to which AMR is considered. Furthermore, by conducting a methodological appraisal of trustworthiness and adaptability, this study will contextualize results to promote the uptake and appropriate interpretation of existing guidelines. Thus, these findings will be useful to decision-makers as well as guideline development groups as they highlight what existing work can be trusted and leveraged while also identifying what limitations and gaps need to be addressed.
{"title":"Incorporating Antimicrobial Resistance Considerations in Antimicrobial Evidence-Based Practice Guidelines: A Protocol for the Development of a Checklist and Multifaceted Appraisal of Existing Guidelines","authors":"Sara Ibrahim, Mark Loeb, Jessica Bartoszko, Maryam Ghadimi, Gordon Guyatt, Benedikt Huttner, Alfonso Iorio, Dominik Mertz, Lorenzo Moja, Gabriel Rada, Pilar Ramon-Pardo, Ludovic Reveiz, Gerard Wright, Nancy Santesso, Romina Brignardello-Petersen","doi":"10.1002/gin2.70057","DOIUrl":"10.1002/gin2.70057","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a widely recognized threat to global health, mainly driven by the inappropriate use of antimicrobials. Recommendations from evidence-based practice guidelines (EBPGs) can promote appropriate antimicrobial use. Currently, no guidance exists for considering AMR in EBPGs. This is the protocol for two studies that aim to (1) develop a checklist of AMR considerations for EBPGs and (2) conduct a case study to evaluate existing EBPGs regarding the extent to which AMR is considered among other methodological assessments.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Using the Delphi technique, we will consult with individuals from four interest-holder groups to develop and refine a checklist of AMR considerations for EBPGs. To assess EBPGs, we will search various databases for guidelines on four prioritized syndromes (i.e., community-acquired pneumonia, urinary tract infection, skin and soft tissue infections and exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). We will screen articles in duplicate and in stages to include EBPGs for the prioritized syndromes and will use piloted data extraction forms to extract characteristics of the EBPGs. For each EBPG, we will evaluate whether AMR was considered (using the developed checklist), its trustworthiness (i.e., methodological quality) (using the modified National Guideline Clearinghouse Extent of Adherence to Trustworthy Standards instrument) and its adaptability (using items from existing adaptability frameworks).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Discussion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This work will develop a checklist of AMR considerations for EBPGs and evaluate a subsequent sample of EBPGs to investigate the extent to which AMR is considered. Furthermore, by conducting a methodological appraisal of trustworthiness and adaptability, this study will contextualize results to promote the uptake and appropriate interpretation of existing guidelines. Thus, these findings will be useful to decision-makers as well as guideline development groups as they highlight what existing work can be trusted and leveraged while also identifying what limitations and gaps need to be addressed.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"3 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.70057","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146136830","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Kian Torabiardakani, Shraddha Sawant, Gonzalo Bravo-Soto, Daniela Montalva-Romero, Rachel J. Couban, Abigail E. Chu, Norman Buckley, Gordon Guyatt, David Juurlink, Jason W. Busse, Andrea J. Darzi
Background
Healthcare guidelines are necessary to optimise patient care and improve health outcomes; however, guidelines alone are insufficient to ensure changes in practice. This overview of reviews aims to identify, map and report on the effectiveness of knowledge translation (KT) strategies to implement guideline recommendations.
Methods
We will conduct this study in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook guidance on overviews of reviews. We will search MEDLINE, CRD, SCOPUS, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Health Systems Evidence, Epistemonikos, CINAHL and Embase. Eligible studies will include systematic reviews evaluating KT interventions for guideline implementation, regardless of the healthcare condition or system level. Teams of reviewers will independently screen and extract data on systematic review characteristics, interventions, outcomes (process-, healthcare professional-, patient- and economic-related and other), contextual factors and review limitations. The same reviewers will assess risk of bias among included reviews using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2). We will synthesise the evidence by classifying intervention effectiveness into the following categories: (1) desirable effect, (2) little or no effect, (3) undesirable effect and (4) uncertain effect, along with the certainty of evidence, if reported. We will present our findings through a narrative synthesis, tabular formats, and an evidence gap map to visualise the evidence landscape.
Discussion
This overview of reviews will provide a summary of KT strategies and their effectiveness for improving guideline implementation. These findings will offer actionable guidance for key interest-holders: investigators can utilise the evidence gap map to identify research priorities; guideline developers can identify effective strategies for increasing uptake of recommendations; and funders can optimise resource allocation by directing support towards evidence-based dissemination strategies.
背景：医疗保健指南对于优化患者护理和改善健康结果是必要的；然而，仅凭指导方针不足以确保实践中的变化。本综述旨在识别、绘制和报告知识翻译（KT）策略实施指南建议的有效性。方法我们将按照Cochrane手册关于综述的指导进行本研究。我们将检索MEDLINE， CRD， SCOPUS, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Health Systems Evidence, Epistemonikos， CINAHL和Embase。符合条件的研究将包括评估指南实施的KT干预措施的系统综述，而不考虑医疗状况或系统水平。审稿人团队将独立筛选和提取有关系统评价特征、干预措施、结果（过程、医疗保健专业人员、患者和经济相关以及其他）、背景因素和评价局限性的数据。同样的审稿人将使用评估系统评价2的测量工具（AMSTAR 2）来评估纳入审评的偏倚风险。我们将通过将干预有效性分为以下几类来综合证据：(1)理想的效果，(2)很少或没有效果，(3)不理想的效果和(4)不确定的效果，以及证据的确定性，如果报告的话。我们将通过叙述综合、表格格式和证据差距图来展示我们的发现，以可视化证据景观。这篇综述将提供一个KT策略的总结，以及它们对改进指南实施的有效性。这些发现将为关键利益相关者提供可操作的指导：调查人员可以利用证据差距图来确定研究重点；指南的制定者可以确定有效的策略来增加建议的采纳；资助者可以通过将支持导向基于证据的传播战略来优化资源分配。
{"title":"Effectiveness of Knowledge Translation Strategies for Guideline Implementation: Protocol for an Update of an Overview of Systematic Reviews","authors":"Kian Torabiardakani, Shraddha Sawant, Gonzalo Bravo-Soto, Daniela Montalva-Romero, Rachel J. Couban, Abigail E. Chu, Norman Buckley, Gordon Guyatt, David Juurlink, Jason W. Busse, Andrea J. Darzi","doi":"10.1002/gin2.70058","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.70058","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Healthcare guidelines are necessary to optimise patient care and improve health outcomes; however, guidelines alone are insufficient to ensure changes in practice. This overview of reviews aims to identify, map and report on the effectiveness of knowledge translation (KT) strategies to implement guideline recommendations.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We will conduct this study in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook guidance on overviews of reviews. We will search MEDLINE, CRD, SCOPUS, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Health Systems Evidence, Epistemonikos, CINAHL and Embase. Eligible studies will include systematic reviews evaluating KT interventions for guideline implementation, regardless of the healthcare condition or system level. Teams of reviewers will independently screen and extract data on systematic review characteristics, interventions, outcomes (process-, healthcare professional-, patient- and economic-related and other), contextual factors and review limitations. The same reviewers will assess risk of bias among included reviews using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2). We will synthesise the evidence by classifying intervention effectiveness into the following categories: (1) desirable effect, (2) little or no effect, (3) undesirable effect and (4) uncertain effect, along with the certainty of evidence, if reported. We will present our findings through a narrative synthesis, tabular formats, and an evidence gap map to visualise the evidence landscape.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Discussion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This overview of reviews will provide a summary of KT strategies and their effectiveness for improving guideline implementation. These findings will offer actionable guidance for key interest-holders: investigators can utilise the evidence gap map to identify research priorities; guideline developers can identify effective strategies for increasing uptake of recommendations; and funders can optimise resource allocation by directing support towards evidence-based dissemination strategies.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"3 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.70058","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146136838","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Kian Torabiardakani, Shraddha Sawant, Gonzalo Bravo-Soto, Daniela Montalva-Romero, Rachel J. Couban, Abigail E. Chu, Norman Buckley, Gordon Guyatt, David Juurlink, Jason W. Busse, Andrea J. Darzi
Background
Healthcare guidelines are necessary to optimise patient care and improve health outcomes; however, guidelines alone are insufficient to ensure changes in practice. This overview of reviews aims to identify, map and report on the effectiveness of knowledge translation (KT) strategies to implement guideline recommendations.
Methods
We will conduct this study in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook guidance on overviews of reviews. We will search MEDLINE, CRD, SCOPUS, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Health Systems Evidence, Epistemonikos, CINAHL and Embase. Eligible studies will include systematic reviews evaluating KT interventions for guideline implementation, regardless of the healthcare condition or system level. Teams of reviewers will independently screen and extract data on systematic review characteristics, interventions, outcomes (process-, healthcare professional-, patient- and economic-related and other), contextual factors and review limitations. The same reviewers will assess risk of bias among included reviews using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2). We will synthesise the evidence by classifying intervention effectiveness into the following categories: (1) desirable effect, (2) little or no effect, (3) undesirable effect and (4) uncertain effect, along with the certainty of evidence, if reported. We will present our findings through a narrative synthesis, tabular formats, and an evidence gap map to visualise the evidence landscape.
Discussion
This overview of reviews will provide a summary of KT strategies and their effectiveness for improving guideline implementation. These findings will offer actionable guidance for key interest-holders: investigators can utilise the evidence gap map to identify research priorities; guideline developers can identify effective strategies for increasing uptake of recommendations; and funders can optimise resource allocation by directing support towards evidence-based dissemination strategies.
背景：医疗保健指南对于优化患者护理和改善健康结果是必要的；然而，仅凭指导方针不足以确保实践中的变化。本综述旨在识别、绘制和报告知识翻译（KT）策略实施指南建议的有效性。方法我们将按照Cochrane手册关于综述的指导进行本研究。我们将检索MEDLINE， CRD， SCOPUS, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Health Systems Evidence, Epistemonikos， CINAHL和Embase。符合条件的研究将包括评估指南实施的KT干预措施的系统综述，而不考虑医疗状况或系统水平。审稿人团队将独立筛选和提取有关系统评价特征、干预措施、结果（过程、医疗保健专业人员、患者和经济相关以及其他）、背景因素和评价局限性的数据。同样的审稿人将使用评估系统评价2的测量工具（AMSTAR 2）来评估纳入审评的偏倚风险。我们将通过将干预有效性分为以下几类来综合证据：(1)理想的效果，(2)很少或没有效果，(3)不理想的效果和(4)不确定的效果，以及证据的确定性，如果报告的话。我们将通过叙述综合、表格格式和证据差距图来展示我们的发现，以可视化证据景观。这篇综述将提供一个KT策略的总结，以及它们对改进指南实施的有效性。这些发现将为关键利益相关者提供可操作的指导：调查人员可以利用证据差距图来确定研究重点；指南的制定者可以确定有效的策略来增加建议的采纳；资助者可以通过将支持导向基于证据的传播战略来优化资源分配。
{"title":"Effectiveness of Knowledge Translation Strategies for Guideline Implementation: Protocol for an Update of an Overview of Systematic Reviews","authors":"Kian Torabiardakani, Shraddha Sawant, Gonzalo Bravo-Soto, Daniela Montalva-Romero, Rachel J. Couban, Abigail E. Chu, Norman Buckley, Gordon Guyatt, David Juurlink, Jason W. Busse, Andrea J. Darzi","doi":"10.1002/gin2.70058","DOIUrl":"10.1002/gin2.70058","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Healthcare guidelines are necessary to optimise patient care and improve health outcomes; however, guidelines alone are insufficient to ensure changes in practice. This overview of reviews aims to identify, map and report on the effectiveness of knowledge translation (KT) strategies to implement guideline recommendations.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We will conduct this study in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook guidance on overviews of reviews. We will search MEDLINE, CRD, SCOPUS, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Health Systems Evidence, Epistemonikos, CINAHL and Embase. Eligible studies will include systematic reviews evaluating KT interventions for guideline implementation, regardless of the healthcare condition or system level. Teams of reviewers will independently screen and extract data on systematic review characteristics, interventions, outcomes (process-, healthcare professional-, patient- and economic-related and other), contextual factors and review limitations. The same reviewers will assess risk of bias among included reviews using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2). We will synthesise the evidence by classifying intervention effectiveness into the following categories: (1) desirable effect, (2) little or no effect, (3) undesirable effect and (4) uncertain effect, along with the certainty of evidence, if reported. We will present our findings through a narrative synthesis, tabular formats, and an evidence gap map to visualise the evidence landscape.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Discussion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This overview of reviews will provide a summary of KT strategies and their effectiveness for improving guideline implementation. These findings will offer actionable guidance for key interest-holders: investigators can utilise the evidence gap map to identify research priorities; guideline developers can identify effective strategies for increasing uptake of recommendations; and funders can optimise resource allocation by directing support towards evidence-based dissemination strategies.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"3 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.70058","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146136836","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Brendan V. Schultz, Timothy H. Barker, Emma Bosley, Amy Keir, Christian Martin-Gill, Dannielle Pollock, Eddy Lang, Elie A. Akl, Holger J. Schünemann, Jennifer Petkovic, Joanne Khabsa, Louise Reynolds, Michael McCaul, Michelle Thomson, Miloslav Klugar, Paul Simpson, Robin Pap, Sonja Maria, Wojtek Wiercioch, Zachary Munn
Introduction
The delivery of healthcare in the out-of-hospital setting by paramedics, emergency medical technicians, and first responders is informed by various health guidelines that cover a myriad of medical presentations. These guidelines often score poorly on quality assessment tools and do not routinely meet accepted standards for guideline development. To address this, we propose the development of an extension to the Guideline International Network (GIN)-McMaster Guideline Development Checklist (GDC) to assist developers of health guidelines on out-of-hospital care.
Methods
The aim of this project are to: (i) identify the current methodologies, approaches and processes used by developers of guidelines on out-of-hospital care and determine how they align with the original GIN-McMaster GDC; (ii) understand the overarching barriers and enablers of guideline development in this setting; (iii) generate a fit-for-purpose extension through an iterative consensus-based approach; and (iv) disseminate this document to target users.
Discussion
This protocol outlines the proposed development of an extension to the GIN-McMaster GDC, designed specifically for developers of health guidelines on out-of-hospital care. The development of this extension will be informed by understanding current practices and the determinants that influence guideline development in this setting. This will involve reviewing all items within the original checklist to determine if modifications and/or new items are required.
{"title":"Development of a GIN-McMaster Checklist Extension for Out-of-Hospital Health Guidelines: A Research Protocol","authors":"Brendan V. Schultz, Timothy H. Barker, Emma Bosley, Amy Keir, Christian Martin-Gill, Dannielle Pollock, Eddy Lang, Elie A. Akl, Holger J. Schünemann, Jennifer Petkovic, Joanne Khabsa, Louise Reynolds, Michael McCaul, Michelle Thomson, Miloslav Klugar, Paul Simpson, Robin Pap, Sonja Maria, Wojtek Wiercioch, Zachary Munn","doi":"10.1002/gin2.70060","DOIUrl":"10.1002/gin2.70060","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The delivery of healthcare in the out-of-hospital setting by paramedics, emergency medical technicians, and first responders is informed by various health guidelines that cover a myriad of medical presentations. These guidelines often score poorly on quality assessment tools and do not routinely meet accepted standards for guideline development. To address this, we propose the development of an extension to the Guideline International Network (GIN)-McMaster Guideline Development Checklist (GDC) to assist developers of health guidelines on out-of-hospital care.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The aim of this project are to: (i) identify the current methodologies, approaches and processes used by developers of guidelines on out-of-hospital care and determine how they align with the original GIN-McMaster GDC; (ii) understand the overarching barriers and enablers of guideline development in this setting; (iii) generate a fit-for-purpose extension through an iterative consensus-based approach; and (iv) disseminate this document to target users.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Discussion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This protocol outlines the proposed development of an extension to the GIN-McMaster GDC, designed specifically for developers of health guidelines on out-of-hospital care. The development of this extension will be informed by understanding current practices and the determinants that influence guideline development in this setting. This will involve reviewing all items within the original checklist to determine if modifications and/or new items are required.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"3 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.70060","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146136837","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Akah Thelma Eni, Ernest Alang Wung, Awah Noella, Ngeh Etienne, Karen DiValerio Gibbs, Guideline International Network- Africa Regional Community, Ebunoluwa Ayinmode
<p>Guidelines are like a compass for putting evidence into practice in global health. They serve as a blueprint for quality care, decision-making guidelines, and, when executed correctly, a lifeline for equitable health outcomes [<span>1</span>]. However, across low and middle-income countries (LMICS), particularly Africa, it is challenging to transition from developing guidelines to implementing them [<span>2</span>]. Imported guidelines often overlook the nuanced details of local context [<span>3</span>], and systemic barriers, such as limited capacity and weak infrastructure, hinder their implementation. Against this backdrop, the Guidelines International Network (GIN) Africa regional community launched a daring initiative: could a simple webinar series spark a paradigm shift on how guidelines are developed, shared, and implemented across the continent [<span>4</span>]? The outcome was not merely affirmative but sparked scholarly reflections.</p><p>Between 2024 and 2025, GIN Africa hosted a series of webinars that went beyond the traditional ‘talkshop’ model. While individual presentations provided context and case examples, the ideas in this editorial reflect recurring themes that emerged across the discussions, regardless of the speaker or specific topic. These sessions became living repositories where new ideas like the Practical Approach to Care Kit (PACK) [<span>5</span>] and AI-powered tools like AISHA have shown how locally designed, scalable solutions can transform the way clinical guidelines come to life. However, this movement encompasses more than just digital tools and frameworks. Rethinking guideline use begins with inclusivity, context, and local ownership. This editorial invites scholarly and professional reflection on how webinars shape knowledge, behavior, and guideline practices in LMICS. Four consistent priorities emerged from the discussions: building capacity, strengthening partnerships, using innovation wisely, and broadening engagement in guidelines.</p><p>Effective guideline development cannot happen in isolation. It depends on strong cross-regional/transnational partnerships that enable knowledge exchange, alignment of experiences, and the creation of recommendations that are both globally robust and locally relevant. Such partnerships foster resource sharing, build capacity, and harmonize standards, factors that improve the adoption of guidelines across diverse settings. Also, transnational collaboration encourages cross-system learning, while cross-disciplinary engagement ensures recommendations are both evidence-based and practical. Equally important is cross-sectoral involvement, bringing together government, civil society, the private sector, and communities. This broad participation enhances credibility, strengthens relevance, and builds shared ownership, all of which support sustainable implementation.</p><p>Capacity building is especially critical in LMICs, where resources are often limited. Initiatives such as
{"title":"From Webinars to Impact: Reenvisioning Clinical Guideline Ecosystem in Africa","authors":"Akah Thelma Eni, Ernest Alang Wung, Awah Noella, Ngeh Etienne, Karen DiValerio Gibbs, Guideline International Network- Africa Regional Community, Ebunoluwa Ayinmode","doi":"10.1002/gin2.70059","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.70059","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Guidelines are like a compass for putting evidence into practice in global health. They serve as a blueprint for quality care, decision-making guidelines, and, when executed correctly, a lifeline for equitable health outcomes [<span>1</span>]. However, across low and middle-income countries (LMICS), particularly Africa, it is challenging to transition from developing guidelines to implementing them [<span>2</span>]. Imported guidelines often overlook the nuanced details of local context [<span>3</span>], and systemic barriers, such as limited capacity and weak infrastructure, hinder their implementation. Against this backdrop, the Guidelines International Network (GIN) Africa regional community launched a daring initiative: could a simple webinar series spark a paradigm shift on how guidelines are developed, shared, and implemented across the continent [<span>4</span>]? The outcome was not merely affirmative but sparked scholarly reflections.</p><p>Between 2024 and 2025, GIN Africa hosted a series of webinars that went beyond the traditional ‘talkshop’ model. While individual presentations provided context and case examples, the ideas in this editorial reflect recurring themes that emerged across the discussions, regardless of the speaker or specific topic. These sessions became living repositories where new ideas like the Practical Approach to Care Kit (PACK) [<span>5</span>] and AI-powered tools like AISHA have shown how locally designed, scalable solutions can transform the way clinical guidelines come to life. However, this movement encompasses more than just digital tools and frameworks. Rethinking guideline use begins with inclusivity, context, and local ownership. This editorial invites scholarly and professional reflection on how webinars shape knowledge, behavior, and guideline practices in LMICS. Four consistent priorities emerged from the discussions: building capacity, strengthening partnerships, using innovation wisely, and broadening engagement in guidelines.</p><p>Effective guideline development cannot happen in isolation. It depends on strong cross-regional/transnational partnerships that enable knowledge exchange, alignment of experiences, and the creation of recommendations that are both globally robust and locally relevant. Such partnerships foster resource sharing, build capacity, and harmonize standards, factors that improve the adoption of guidelines across diverse settings. Also, transnational collaboration encourages cross-system learning, while cross-disciplinary engagement ensures recommendations are both evidence-based and practical. Equally important is cross-sectoral involvement, bringing together government, civil society, the private sector, and communities. This broad participation enhances credibility, strengthens relevance, and builds shared ownership, all of which support sustainable implementation.</p><p>Capacity building is especially critical in LMICs, where resources are often limited. Initiatives such as","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.70059","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146007717","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pakeezah Saadat, Maheen Raja, Andrea J. Darzi, Charlotte T. J. Michels, Alina Herrmann, Karolina Anna Scahill, Laura M. Jewell, K. M. Saif-Ur-Rahman, Hendrik Napierala, Ruben Heuer, Rebecca L. Morgan, Grigorios I. Leontiadis, Ignacio Neumann, Fiona A. Miller, Holger J. Schünemann, Thomas Piggott
Introduction
Individual human health is inextricably linked to planetary health, which refers to the health of human civilization and the natural systems on which it depends. These systems are captured by the nine planetary boundaries which together define a safe operating space for humanity. The health sector contributes to the transgression of these boundaries, thereby jeopardizing both individual and planetary health. However, there is a growing interest in the health sector in incorporating the preservation of planetary boundaries into health guidelines and health technology assessments (HTAs), which synthesize evidence and guide healthcare decisions.
Methods
This scoping review aims to describe methodological guidance and considerations for incorporating planetary health in health guidelines and HTAs. We conducted a scoping review adhering to the JBI methodology including articles from several databases since inception until September 2023. We used narrative synthesis and descriptive statistics to describe eligible studies.
Results
Of the 38 included studies, 14 (37%) were commentaries, six (16%) were methodological papers, and four (10·5%) were health guidelines. Included studies focused primarily on greenhouse gas emissions as an outcome. The included health guidelines were rated at a median of 52% (range: 16% to 67%) on AGREE II for methodological quality.
Discussion
Key findings pertain to the normative significance of planetary health in guidelines and HTAs, scope and quality of included studies, inconsistencies in methods, and challenges in implementation. These findings will inform future Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) guidance on planetary health.
Registration
A protocol of this scoping review was registered in Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/3jmsa) and published in the journal Systematic Reviews (10.1186/s13643-024-02577-2).
{"title":"Planetary Health in Health Guidelines and Health Technology Assessments: A Scoping Review","authors":"Pakeezah Saadat, Maheen Raja, Andrea J. Darzi, Charlotte T. J. Michels, Alina Herrmann, Karolina Anna Scahill, Laura M. Jewell, K. M. Saif-Ur-Rahman, Hendrik Napierala, Ruben Heuer, Rebecca L. Morgan, Grigorios I. Leontiadis, Ignacio Neumann, Fiona A. Miller, Holger J. Schünemann, Thomas Piggott","doi":"10.1002/gin2.70056","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.70056","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Individual human health is inextricably linked to planetary health, which refers to the health of human civilization and the natural systems on which it depends. These systems are captured by the nine planetary boundaries which together define a safe operating space for humanity. The health sector contributes to the transgression of these boundaries, thereby jeopardizing both individual and planetary health. However, there is a growing interest in the health sector in incorporating the preservation of planetary boundaries into health guidelines and health technology assessments (HTAs), which synthesize evidence and guide healthcare decisions.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This scoping review aims to describe methodological guidance and considerations for incorporating planetary health in health guidelines and HTAs. We conducted a scoping review adhering to the JBI methodology including articles from several databases since inception until September 2023. We used narrative synthesis and descriptive statistics to describe eligible studies.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Of the 38 included studies, 14 (37%) were commentaries, six (16%) were methodological papers, and four (10·5%) were health guidelines. Included studies focused primarily on greenhouse gas emissions as an outcome. The included health guidelines were rated at a median of 52% (range: 16% to 67%) on AGREE II for methodological quality.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Discussion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Key findings pertain to the normative significance of planetary health in guidelines and HTAs, scope and quality of included studies, inconsistencies in methods, and challenges in implementation. These findings will inform future Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) guidance on planetary health.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Registration</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>A protocol of this scoping review was registered in Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/3jmsa) and published in the journal Systematic Reviews (10.1186/s13643-024-02577-2).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.70056","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145739895","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号