Collaborative approaches in guideline development: a survey of organizations handbooks

Article type
Authors
Zeidan L1, Abou Mansour M2, Alam M3, Khabsa J4, Akl E5
1Faculty of Health Sciences, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
2Faculty of Medicine, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
3Department of Dermatology, Otolaryngology, and Surgery,Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois , USA
4Clinical Research Institute, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon
5 Department of Internal Medicine, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact,McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Abstract
Background
Meeting quality standards in guideline development requires resources and expertise, which may exceed readily available capacities. In response, guideline-producing organizations are increasingly embracing collaborative approaches and endorsement processes. Collaboration allows participants to mitigate resource limitations, reduce duplication, and increase guideline dissemination and adoption. However, successful collaboration and endorsement requires careful management of key policy components by guideline-producing organizations
Objective
To describe policies of guideline-producing organizations for collaborative approaches.
Methods
We conducted a systematic search to identify published methodological guidance by guideline-producing organizations. Two independent reviewers assessed eligibility and abstracted data on the organizations’ characteristics and their policies for collaborative approaches. We tabulated the data by pre-defined components of collaboration and explored variations based on terminology used for collaborative approaches. We analyzed categorical variables using frequencies and percentages and summarized the findings (narrative and tabular formats).
Results
Of the 133 identified guideline-producing organizations, 73 (55%) organizations described at least one collaborative approach. Approaches were referred to as either ‘collaboration’(43%), ‘partnership’ (32%), ‘joint work’ (29%), or endorsement (56%). Our analysis did not identify substantive variations between the first three approaches. Subsequently, we combined them under ‘collaboration’. The most frequently addressed components for collaboration were conditions/requirements and authority for decision to collaborate (34%), dissemination plan (40%), and team structure and governance (44%). The least addressed components were division of labor (1%), communication plan (1%), and writing (1%). None of the organizations addressed the following components: mission and vision, team building plan, team motivation, capacity building plan, sharing resources, shared benefits, protocol development plan, data management plan, research ethics policy, monitoring of the collaboration, and evaluation. The components of an endorsement approach varied depending on whether the perspective was that of an endorser or endorsee organization.
Conclusion
About half of guideline-producing organizations had policies addressing collaborative approaches. The two main approaches were collaboration and endorsement. While team structure and governance and dissemination plans were mostly described, many important components were either insufficient or not covered.
Patient relevance/involvement: By leveraging expertise and resources, collaborative approaches lead to more comprehensive, evidence-based recommendations, improving patient care. No members of the public/patients were involved in the study.