Article type
Year
Abstract
Background:
The prevalence of chronic disease has increased rapidly in South Korea, but the level of appropriate management for patients with chronic diseases is low.
Objectives:
This study aimed to select the priority topics among chronic diseases in South Korea that needed guidelines to be developed to ensure the efficient allocation of resources.
Methods:
The Korean government, the Korean Center for Disease Control, has planned for development of clinical practice guidelines for chronic diseases through cooperation with the Korean Academy of Medical Sciences since 2013. Setting priority topics was the first step in the planning. For this selection, the following activities were carried out in order: 1) setting the criteria for selection of priorities, 2) constitution of an advisory group, 3) listing of 20 chronic disease candidates. 4) yielding the statistical indicators, and 5) Delphi survey. The response rate showed 44%. The survey for priorities was performed with the sum of rankings approach, and the product of actual values approach, by targeted chronic diseases.
Results:
Six criteria for selection of priorities were selected through international case studies and literature review, these were: disease burden, relevance of national policy, demand for development, the status of developed guidelines, variation in treatment, and healthcare expenditure. The Delphi survey revealed the high priorities to be stroke, ischemic heart disease, back pain, hyperlipidemia, chronic renal failure, prostatic hypertrophy, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, depression, dementia, asthma. These were variable depending on the experience of the clinical field; the diseases that need treatment guidelines to be developed were stroke, dementia, ischemic heart disease, and hyperlipidemia.
Conclusions:
It is necessary to use a rational process based on evidence to develop the priorities for guidelines for the management of chronic disease. The development of clinical pathways should reflect the opinions of the medical field such as the developers’ needs and the variation of care in addition to disease burden.
The prevalence of chronic disease has increased rapidly in South Korea, but the level of appropriate management for patients with chronic diseases is low.
Objectives:
This study aimed to select the priority topics among chronic diseases in South Korea that needed guidelines to be developed to ensure the efficient allocation of resources.
Methods:
The Korean government, the Korean Center for Disease Control, has planned for development of clinical practice guidelines for chronic diseases through cooperation with the Korean Academy of Medical Sciences since 2013. Setting priority topics was the first step in the planning. For this selection, the following activities were carried out in order: 1) setting the criteria for selection of priorities, 2) constitution of an advisory group, 3) listing of 20 chronic disease candidates. 4) yielding the statistical indicators, and 5) Delphi survey. The response rate showed 44%. The survey for priorities was performed with the sum of rankings approach, and the product of actual values approach, by targeted chronic diseases.
Results:
Six criteria for selection of priorities were selected through international case studies and literature review, these were: disease burden, relevance of national policy, demand for development, the status of developed guidelines, variation in treatment, and healthcare expenditure. The Delphi survey revealed the high priorities to be stroke, ischemic heart disease, back pain, hyperlipidemia, chronic renal failure, prostatic hypertrophy, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, depression, dementia, asthma. These were variable depending on the experience of the clinical field; the diseases that need treatment guidelines to be developed were stroke, dementia, ischemic heart disease, and hyperlipidemia.
Conclusions:
It is necessary to use a rational process based on evidence to develop the priorities for guidelines for the management of chronic disease. The development of clinical pathways should reflect the opinions of the medical field such as the developers’ needs and the variation of care in addition to disease burden.