罕见遗传神经发育障碍临床实践指南制定的优先级设定标准:欧洲参考网络(ERN) ITHACA中的德尔菲研究。

IF 5.2 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of Clinical Epidemiology Pub Date : 2025-03-18 DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111761
Mirthe J. Klein Haneveld , Michiel S. Oerbekke , Katalin Szakszon , Martina C. Cornel , Charlotte M.W. Gaasterland , Agnies M. Van Eeghen
{"title":"罕见遗传神经发育障碍临床实践指南制定的优先级设定标准:欧洲参考网络(ERN) ITHACA中的德尔菲研究。","authors":"Mirthe J. Klein Haneveld ,&nbsp;Michiel S. Oerbekke ,&nbsp;Katalin Szakszon ,&nbsp;Martina C. Cornel ,&nbsp;Charlotte M.W. Gaasterland ,&nbsp;Agnies M. Van Eeghen","doi":"10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111761","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>The prioritization of clinical practice guideline (CPG) efforts is particularly challenging for rare genetic neurodevelopmental disorders given the large number of (ultra)rare conditions and limited resources. We aimed to establish criteria for the priority-setting of CPG topics within the European Reference Network (ERN) Intellectual disability, TeleHealth, Autism, and Congenital Anomalies (ITHACA) based on stakeholder input.</div></div><div><h3>Study Design and Setting</h3><div>Sets of priority-setting criteria for etiology-specific CPGs and shared health topic CPGs (across etiologies) were generated using a 2-phase consensus process. The first phase consisted of initial criteria generation, internal feedback from the ERN ITHACA Executive Committee and Patient Advisory Board, and stakeholder input through an open survey. The second phase consisted of a 2-round modified Delphi and consensus meeting with an expert panel consisting of patient advocates, clinicians, and methodologists.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The final sets of priority-setting criteria included absence of existing guidance, high burden for affected individuals and families, and specific health risks requiring adaptation from usual care. In addition, complexity and treatment availability were included for etiology-specific CPGs and common occurrence and societal burden were included for CPGs for shared health topics. Availability and interest of clinical experts and patient organizations were considered required to produce CPGs; shared health topics addressed through dedicated CPGs need to be universal across etiologies.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Aligning with stakeholder perspectives in priority-setting is required to allocate scarce resources to the development of high-priority CPGs for rare conditions. Priority-setting criteria specific to the rare condition context were identified. CPG development was considered a particular priority important for complex conditions and/or health care and where care is nonstandard. Practice variation was not selected as a priority-setting criterion.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51079,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology","volume":"182 ","pages":"Article 111761"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Priority-setting criteria for clinical practice guideline development on rare genetic neurodevelopmental disorders: a Delphi study within the European Reference Network ITHACA\",\"authors\":\"Mirthe J. Klein Haneveld ,&nbsp;Michiel S. Oerbekke ,&nbsp;Katalin Szakszon ,&nbsp;Martina C. Cornel ,&nbsp;Charlotte M.W. Gaasterland ,&nbsp;Agnies M. Van Eeghen\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111761\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>The prioritization of clinical practice guideline (CPG) efforts is particularly challenging for rare genetic neurodevelopmental disorders given the large number of (ultra)rare conditions and limited resources. We aimed to establish criteria for the priority-setting of CPG topics within the European Reference Network (ERN) Intellectual disability, TeleHealth, Autism, and Congenital Anomalies (ITHACA) based on stakeholder input.</div></div><div><h3>Study Design and Setting</h3><div>Sets of priority-setting criteria for etiology-specific CPGs and shared health topic CPGs (across etiologies) were generated using a 2-phase consensus process. The first phase consisted of initial criteria generation, internal feedback from the ERN ITHACA Executive Committee and Patient Advisory Board, and stakeholder input through an open survey. The second phase consisted of a 2-round modified Delphi and consensus meeting with an expert panel consisting of patient advocates, clinicians, and methodologists.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The final sets of priority-setting criteria included absence of existing guidance, high burden for affected individuals and families, and specific health risks requiring adaptation from usual care. In addition, complexity and treatment availability were included for etiology-specific CPGs and common occurrence and societal burden were included for CPGs for shared health topics. Availability and interest of clinical experts and patient organizations were considered required to produce CPGs; shared health topics addressed through dedicated CPGs need to be universal across etiologies.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Aligning with stakeholder perspectives in priority-setting is required to allocate scarce resources to the development of high-priority CPGs for rare conditions. Priority-setting criteria specific to the rare condition context were identified. CPG development was considered a particular priority important for complex conditions and/or health care and where care is nonstandard. Practice variation was not selected as a priority-setting criterion.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51079,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology\",\"volume\":\"182 \",\"pages\":\"Article 111761\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435625000940\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435625000940","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:考虑到大量(超)罕见的疾病和有限的资源,临床实践指南(CPG)工作的优先次序对罕见的遗传性神经发育障碍尤其具有挑战性。我们的目标是根据利益相关者的意见,为欧洲参考网络(ERN) ITHACA(智力残疾、远程医疗、自闭症和先天性异常)内CPG主题的优先级设定建立标准。研究设计和设置:采用两阶段共识过程生成了病原学特异性CPGs和共享健康主题CPGs(跨病原学)的优先设置标准集。第一阶段包括初始标准的制定,来自ERN-ITHACA执行委员会和患者咨询委员会的内部反馈,以及利益相关者通过公开调查的意见。第二阶段包括两轮改进的德尔菲和由患者倡导者、临床医生和方法学家组成的专家小组的共识会议。结果:最终确定的重点标准包括缺乏现有指导、受影响个人和家庭的高负担以及需要从常规护理中调整的特定健康风险。此外,对于病因特异性CPGs,包括复杂性和治疗可得性,对于共同健康主题的CPGs,包括常见发生率和社会负担。临床专家和患者组织的可用性和兴趣被认为是生产CPGs的必要条件;通过专门的cpg处理的共同健康主题需要在病因学上具有普遍性。结论:需要在优先设置方面与利益相关者的观点保持一致,以便将稀缺资源分配给针对罕见疾病的高优先CPGs的开发。确定了针对罕见病环境的优先级设置标准。CPG的发展被认为是复杂条件和/或医疗保健以及非标准护理的特别重要的优先事项。实践变化没有被选为优先级设置标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Priority-setting criteria for clinical practice guideline development on rare genetic neurodevelopmental disorders: a Delphi study within the European Reference Network ITHACA

Objectives

The prioritization of clinical practice guideline (CPG) efforts is particularly challenging for rare genetic neurodevelopmental disorders given the large number of (ultra)rare conditions and limited resources. We aimed to establish criteria for the priority-setting of CPG topics within the European Reference Network (ERN) Intellectual disability, TeleHealth, Autism, and Congenital Anomalies (ITHACA) based on stakeholder input.

Study Design and Setting

Sets of priority-setting criteria for etiology-specific CPGs and shared health topic CPGs (across etiologies) were generated using a 2-phase consensus process. The first phase consisted of initial criteria generation, internal feedback from the ERN ITHACA Executive Committee and Patient Advisory Board, and stakeholder input through an open survey. The second phase consisted of a 2-round modified Delphi and consensus meeting with an expert panel consisting of patient advocates, clinicians, and methodologists.

Results

The final sets of priority-setting criteria included absence of existing guidance, high burden for affected individuals and families, and specific health risks requiring adaptation from usual care. In addition, complexity and treatment availability were included for etiology-specific CPGs and common occurrence and societal burden were included for CPGs for shared health topics. Availability and interest of clinical experts and patient organizations were considered required to produce CPGs; shared health topics addressed through dedicated CPGs need to be universal across etiologies.

Conclusion

Aligning with stakeholder perspectives in priority-setting is required to allocate scarce resources to the development of high-priority CPGs for rare conditions. Priority-setting criteria specific to the rare condition context were identified. CPG development was considered a particular priority important for complex conditions and/or health care and where care is nonstandard. Practice variation was not selected as a priority-setting criterion.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
12.00
自引率
6.90%
发文量
320
审稿时长
44 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Epidemiology strives to enhance the quality of clinical and patient-oriented healthcare research by advancing and applying innovative methods in conducting, presenting, synthesizing, disseminating, and translating research results into optimal clinical practice. Special emphasis is placed on training new generations of scientists and clinical practice leaders.
期刊最新文献
'Identifying Social Factors that Stratify Health Opportunities and Outcomes (ISSHOOs) in Pain Research': Explanation and elaboration to support the standardised reporting of equity-relevant data. Evaluation of tools used to assess adherence to PRISMA 2020 reveals inconsistent methods and poor tool implementability: part I of a systematic review. Use of minimum et maximum pre-test probabilities to conclude with confidence after obtaining a diagnostic test result. Modifiable methodological and reporting practices are associated with reproducibility of health sciences research: a systematic review and evidence and gap map. Long Title: Challenges in handling allogeneic stem cell transplantation in randomized clinical trials.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1