Prioritizing WHO normative work on maternal and perinatal health: a multicountry survey

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>WHO develops evidence-based guidelines for setting global standards and providing technical support to its Member States and the international community, as a whole. There is a clear need to ensure that WHO guidance is relevant, rigorous and up-to date. A key activity is to ascertain the guidance needs of the countries. This study provides an international comparison of priority guidance needs for maternal and perinatal health. It incorporates data from those who inform policy and implementation strategies at a national level, in addition to targeting those who use and most need the guidance at grassroot level.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>An online multi-country survey was used to identify WHO guidance priorities for the next five years in the field of maternal and perinatal health. WHO regional and country offices were requested to respond the survey and obtain responses from Ministries of Health around the world. In addition, the survey was disseminated through other networks and relevant electronic forums.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 393 responses were received, including 56 from Ministries of Health and 54 from WHO/UN country offices. 75% of responses were from developing countries and 25% from developed countries. Guidance on strategies focusing on 'quality of care' issues to reduce all-cause maternal/perinatal mortality was considered the most important domain to target, which includes for instance guidance to improve access, dissemination, implementation of effective practices and health professionals' education.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This study provides a panorama of international priority guidance needs for maternal and perinatal health. Although clinical guidance remains a priority, there are other areas related to health systems guidance, which seem to be even more important. Overall, the domain ranked highest in terms of greatest need for guidance was around quality of care, which included questions related to educational needs, access to and implementation of guidance.</p

The updating of clinical practice guidelines: insights from an international survey

Contains fulltext : 98466.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have become increasingly popular, and the methodology to develop guidelines has evolved enormously. However, little attention has been given to the updating process, in contrast to the appraisal of the available literature. We conducted an international survey to identify current practices in CPG updating and explored the need to standardize and improve the methods. METHODS: We developed a questionnaire (28 items) based on a review of the existing literature about guideline updating and expert comments. We carried out the survey between March and July 2009, and it was sent by email to 106 institutions: 69 members of the Guidelines International Network who declared that they developed CPGs; 30 institutions included in the U.S. National Guideline Clearinghouse database that published more than 20 CPGs; and 7 institutions selected by an expert committee. RESULTS: Forty-four institutions answered the questionnaire (42% response rate). In the final analysis, 39 completed questionnaires were included. Thirty-six institutions (92%) reported that they update their guidelines. Thirty-one institutions (86%) have a formal procedure for updating their guidelines, and 19 (53%) have a formal procedure for deciding when a guideline becomes out of date. Institutions describe the process as moderately rigorous (36%) or acknowledge that it could certainly be more rigorous (36%). Twenty-two institutions (61%) alert guideline users on their website when a guideline is older than three to five years or when there is a risk of being outdated. Twenty-five institutions (64%) support the concept of "living guidelines," which are continuously monitored and updated. Eighteen institutions (46%) have plans to design a protocol to improve their guideline-updating process, and 21 (54%) are willing to share resources with other organizations. CONCLUSIONS: Our study is the first to describe the process of updating CPGs among prominent guideline institutions across the world, providing a comprehensive picture of guideline updating. There is an urgent need to develop rigorous international standards for this process and to minimize duplication of effort internationally