Developing evidence-based clinical practice guidelines in hospitals in Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand: values, requirements and barriers

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines support clinical decision-making by making recommendations to guide clinical practice. These recommendations are developed by integrating the expertise of a multidisciplinary group of clinicians with the perspectives of consumers and the best available research evidence. However studies have raised concerns about the quality of guideline development, and particularly the link between research and recommendations. The reasons why guideline developers are not following the established development methods are not clear.</p> <p>We aimed to explore the barriers to developing evidence-based guidelines in eleven hospitals in Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand, so as to better understand how evidence-based guideline development could be facilitated in these settings. The research aimed to identify the value clinicians place on guidelines, what clinicians want in guidelines developed in hospital settings and what factors limit rigorous evidence-based guideline development in these settings.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Semi-structured, face-to-face interviews were undertaken with senior and junior healthcare providers (nurses, midwives, doctors, allied health) from the maternal and neonatal services of the eleven participating hospitals. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and a thematic analysis undertaken.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Ninety-three individual, 25 pair and eleven group interviews were conducted. Participants were clear that they want guidelines that are based on evidence and updated regularly. They were also clear that there are major barriers to this. Most of the barriers were shared across countries, and included lack of time, lack of skills in finding, appraising and interpreting evidence, lack of access to relevant evidence and difficulty arranging meetings and achieving consensus.</p> <p>Barriers that were primarily identified in Australian hospitals include cumbersome organisational processes and a feeling that guidelines are being developed for bureaucratic ends. Barriers that were primarily identified in South East Asian hospitals include difficulty accessing evidence due to limited resources available for computers, internet and journal subscriptions and limited skills in computing and English.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The clinicians in these eleven very different hospitals want evidence-based guidelines. However they are frustrated by guideline development processes that are enormously time, skill and resource intensive. They feel strongly that "there's got to be a better way".</p> <p>The fact that the great majority of the identified barriers were shared across settings may provide an opportunity to develop a more pragmatic way of developing guidelines that can be applied in many contexts.</p

Defining Research to Improve Health Systems

Robert Terry and colleagues present working definitions of operational research, implementation research, and health systems research within the context of research to strengthen health systems

Cost-effectiveness of guideline-endorsed treatments for low back pain: a systematic review

Healthcare costs for low back pain (LBP) are increasing rapidly. Hence, it is important to provide treatments that are effective and cost-effective. The purpose of this systematic review was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of guideline-endorsed treatments for LBP. We searched nine clinical and economic electronic databases and the reference list of relevant systematic reviews and included studies for eligible studies. Economic evaluations conducted alongside randomised controlled trials investigating treatments for LBP endorsed by the guideline of the American College of Physicians and the American Pain Society were included. Two independent reviewers screened search results and extracted data. Data extracted included the type and perspective of the economic evaluation, the treatment comparators, and the relative cost-effectiveness of the treatment comparators. Twenty-six studies were included. Most studies found that interdisciplinary rehabilitation, exercise, acupuncture, spinal manipulation or cognitive-behavioural therapy were cost-effective in people with sub-acute or chronic LBP. Massage alone was unlikely to be cost-effective. There were inconsistent results on the cost-effectiveness of advice, insufficient evidence on spinal manipulation for people with acute LBP, and no evidence on the cost-effectiveness of medications, yoga or relaxation. This review found evidence supporting the cost-effectiveness of the guideline-endorsed treatments of interdisciplinary rehabilitation, exercise, acupuncture, spinal manipulation and cognitive-behavioural therapy for sub-acute or chronic LBP. There is little or inconsistent evidence for other treatments endorsed in the guideline

Aid and the control of tuberculosis in Papua New Guinea: is Australia's assistance cost-effective?

Australia supports the control of tuberculosis in Papua New Guinea for reasons of aid effectiveness and a desire to decrease the chance of importing tuberculosis to Australia. This paper analyses the case for this support using both cost-utility and cost-benefit analysis. We reach three conclusions. First, Australia directly benefits from its investment in controlling tuberculosis in Papua New Guinea, with a cost of $US 13 million (in 2012 prices) over 10 years earning a net present value of$US 22 million. Second, the longer and more extensive the basic directly observed short course therapy, or basic DOTS, to control tuberculosis, the higher are the returns for Australia. Finally, in addition to surpassing all commonly used benchmarks for being a cost-effective investment for Australia, a basic DOTS expansion also generates a health benefit for Papua New Guinea that compares well as one of the ‘ten best health buys’ in developing countries

Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations II: pilot study of a new system

Background Systems that are used by different organisations to grade the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations vary. They have different strengths and weaknesses. The GRADE Working Group has developed an approach that addresses key shortcomings in these systems. The aim of this study was to pilot test and further develop the GRADE approach to grading evidence and recommendations. Methods A GRADE evidence profile consists of two tables: a quality assessment and a summary of findings. Twelve evidence profiles were used in this pilot study. Each evidence profile was made based on information available in a systematic review. Seventeen people were given instructions and independently graded the level of evidence and strength of recommendation for each of the 12 evidence profiles. For each example judgements were collected, summarised and discussed in the group with the aim of improving the proposed grading system. Kappas were calculated as a measure of chance-corrected agreement for the quality of evidence for each outcome for each of the twelve evidence profiles. The seventeen judges were also asked about the ease of understanding and the sensibility of the approach. All of the judgements were recorded and disagreements discussed. Results There was a varied amount of agreement on the quality of evidence for the outcomes relating to each of the twelve questions (kappa coefficients for agreement beyond chance ranged from 0 to 0.82). However, there was fair agreement about the relative importance of each outcome. There was poor agreement about the balance of benefits and harms and recommendations. Most of the disagreements were easily resolved through discussion. In general we found the GRADE approach to be clear, understandable and sensible. Some modifications were made in the approach and it was agreed that more information was needed in the evidence profiles. Conclusion Judgements about evidence and recommendations are complex. Some subjectivity, especially regarding recommendations, is unavoidable. We believe our system for guiding these complex judgements appropriately balances the need for simplicity with the need for full and transparent consideration of all important issues