ObjectivesTo investigate the current status of the clinical applicability evaluation tools, and to provide some foundation for establishment of the clinical applicability evaluation index system.Methods7 databases, 6 guideline databases and 16 academic institutions and the administrative department of health website were systematically searched from inception to April 2019. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and then included the literature related to the applicability of clinical guidelines. The CPG clinical applicability evaluation index was initially prepared through the subject comprehensive method.ResultsA total of 19 articles were finally included. Among them, there were 4 evaluation tools for the clinical applicability of the guidelines, and 15 evaluation tools for the guideline clinical applicability evaluation items. Through combing and comparison, we found that these tools had differences in evaluators, evaluation fields and items.ConclusionsThe global guidelines for clinical applicability assessment tools have different kinds of problems, such as that the tools are not targeted, the indicators are not well-formed, and the methodological knowledge requirement of the evaluators is high. There is still a lack of guidelines for clinical applicability assessment tools from target users’ view.
ObjectivesTo establish a tool for evaluating clinical applicability of guidelines with the users of the guidelines as evaluators.MethodsThe research group formed a multidisciplinary team to establish an evidence- based tool for evaluating clinical applicability of guidelines through systematic evaluation and two rounds of Delphi expert consultation and external audit.ResultsThe established tool consisted: evaluator basic information (12 items); clinical applicability evaluation (12 items, including availability, readability, acceptability, feasibility and overall evaluation); and scoring scheme.ConclusionsThis study has established a tool for evaluating clinical applicability of guidelines with the users of the guidelines as evaluators and provides criteria and methods for evaluating clinical applicability of guidelines.
ObjectiveTo develop a transparent evaluation tool for the transparency of clinical practice guidelines.MethodsLiterature, books and policy documents related to the transparency of guidelines were retrieved from PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, WanFang Data and CNKI databases to form a pool of items. After two rounds of Delphi expert consultation, the items were modified and scored to determine whether to be included in the final evaluation system. Expert consensus would determine the organization and evaluation method of the final tool.ResultsA total of 77 references were included, and 399 items related to transparency of guidelines were extracted. The items pool containing 53 items was formed after normalization and de-duplication. After two rounds of Delphi consultation, the evaluation tool for transparency of clinical practice guidelines covering 32 items in 6 areas was formed. The established tool consisted of planning (5 items), personnel selection (6 items), conflict of interest management (6 items), recommendation formation process (8 items), external review process (3 items), and guide reporting process (4 items).ConclusionsThe developed evaluation tool for transparency of clinical practice guidelines can provide a standard for the formulation, evaluation and utilization of guidelines from the perspective of transparency.
Objective The ultimate goal of developing guidelines is for using them in clinical practice. In this study, an implementation evaluation tool was developed to promote the overall evaluation of guidelines and to improve their promotion and implementation. Methods The research group set up a team to formulate and establish a guideline implementation evaluation tool, through preliminary research, interviews, a systematic review of relevant literature, two expert consensus meetings and two Delphi expert consensus meetings to evaluate the guideline implementation tool. Experts were invited to give opinions and grades on the fields, items and overall implementation evaluation method of the tool. Results The evaluation tool for the implementation of guidelines included 5 fields, accessibility, communicability, performability, recognizability and applicability, with a total of 7 items. The scale-level CVIs in two rounds of Delphi expert consensus were 0.91 and 0.93. We collected opinions and suggestions and made some revisions and insertions without deleting any items based on the parameter that no items fulfilled the standard if mean <3.5, coefficient of variation >15% and I-CVI<0.78. Conclusion In this study, in order to provide a standard and method for the evaluation of guideline implementation, a guideline implementation evaluation tool has been developed and evaluated by clinically-related physicians and guideline formulation methodology experts. The guideline implementation evaluation tool presents satisfactory face and content validity. Empirical research is needed to verify the tool’s performance in evaluating guideline implementation.
ObjectiveTo summarize the evaluation tools for the implementation effect of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), to inform and support the evidence-based development of a general tool for the evaluation of implementation effect of CPGs. MethodsSeven biomedical literature databases, including PubMed, Embase and CNKI, and two academic websites, were searched from establishment to June 2022. Theoretical and empirical research on the evaluation tools of the implementation effect of CPGs were included. Two researchers independently screened literature and extracted data according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Based on the Implementation Science RE-AIM theoretical framework, an evaluation framework and a list of alternative items of the implementation effect of the CPGs were initially drawn up by thematic synthesis methods. ResultsA total of 208 articles were included, and 8 mature evaluation tools related to the implementation effect of guidelines were selected. Current research on the evaluation of the implementation effect of CPGs mainly focused on single diseases, with concern of the cognition, attitude and compliance of users to CPGs, and the process of the implementation of CPGs and factors affecting the implementation effect of CPGs. There were limitations such as a lack of evaluation on the terminal effect of the implementation of CPGs, the rare use of mature theoretical frameworks, the use of single evaluation perspectives, and inclusion of limited evaluation dimensions. The initial proposed evaluation framework contains a list of alternative items with 6 primary indicators, 12 secondary indicators and 41 tertiary indicators. ConclusionCurrently, there is a lack of a comprehensive, multi-perspective, mature theory based, general tool for the evaluation of implementation effect of CPGs. The framework and the list of alternative items for the evaluation of implementation effect of CPGs based on the implementation science RE-AIM theory can inform and support the development of a tool for the evaluation of implementation effect of CPGs.