Article type
Abstract
Background:
In Korea, the demand for the development of evidence-based guidelines has risen. However, there has been a lack of systematic support in terms of national-level funding or methodological assistance.
Objectives:
As a national research agency dedicated to evidence-based health care, our goal was to establish a collaborative system between national healthcare authorities and academic societies for the creation of trustworthy clinical practice guidelines.
Methods:
Building upon the findings from prior studies on the status of guideline development in Korea, particularly focusing on methodology, we instituted an annual process for the creation of national-level clinical practice guidelines. Notification of topic priorities was communicated to medical academic societies, emphasizing a comprehensive approach that integrates the expertise of healthcare professionals, researchers, and academic societies. Following a meticulous selection process by the review committee, we supported the development of 1 or 2 guidelines annually, providing funding and engaging methodologists for each project.
In partnership with the Korean Academy of Medical Sciences (KAMS), we formulated a guideline development handbook. This handbook outlines a comprehensive process involving systematic review of available evidence, adherence to the GRADE approach, and transparent consensus within the guideline panel. Moreover, factors such as cultural relevance, resource availability, and stakeholder engagement are actively taken into account throughout the development process.
Results:
Our program has generated several influential national guidelines. We worked closely with medical societies to create living guidelines for COVID-19 and treatment guidelines for myocardial infarction, smoking cessation, and dementia/mild cognitive impairment. Furthermore, we partnered with the National Cancer Center to provide methodological guidance in the planning, development, and assessment of their guidelines. By highlighting the synergistic efforts between national healthcare authorities and academic societies, we emphasized the importance of a cohesive approach to guideline development. The achievements of these collaborations inspire us to broaden national-level funding and assistance for forthcoming guideline initiatives.
Conclusion:
Collaboratively developing national-level clinical practice guidelines with academic societies is pivotal in laying a strong groundwork for evidence-based healthcare. We will offer insights into the methodologies, outcomes, and repercussions of such joint efforts, underscoring their role in enhancing healthcare standards nationally.
In Korea, the demand for the development of evidence-based guidelines has risen. However, there has been a lack of systematic support in terms of national-level funding or methodological assistance.
Objectives:
As a national research agency dedicated to evidence-based health care, our goal was to establish a collaborative system between national healthcare authorities and academic societies for the creation of trustworthy clinical practice guidelines.
Methods:
Building upon the findings from prior studies on the status of guideline development in Korea, particularly focusing on methodology, we instituted an annual process for the creation of national-level clinical practice guidelines. Notification of topic priorities was communicated to medical academic societies, emphasizing a comprehensive approach that integrates the expertise of healthcare professionals, researchers, and academic societies. Following a meticulous selection process by the review committee, we supported the development of 1 or 2 guidelines annually, providing funding and engaging methodologists for each project.
In partnership with the Korean Academy of Medical Sciences (KAMS), we formulated a guideline development handbook. This handbook outlines a comprehensive process involving systematic review of available evidence, adherence to the GRADE approach, and transparent consensus within the guideline panel. Moreover, factors such as cultural relevance, resource availability, and stakeholder engagement are actively taken into account throughout the development process.
Results:
Our program has generated several influential national guidelines. We worked closely with medical societies to create living guidelines for COVID-19 and treatment guidelines for myocardial infarction, smoking cessation, and dementia/mild cognitive impairment. Furthermore, we partnered with the National Cancer Center to provide methodological guidance in the planning, development, and assessment of their guidelines. By highlighting the synergistic efforts between national healthcare authorities and academic societies, we emphasized the importance of a cohesive approach to guideline development. The achievements of these collaborations inspire us to broaden national-level funding and assistance for forthcoming guideline initiatives.
Conclusion:
Collaboratively developing national-level clinical practice guidelines with academic societies is pivotal in laying a strong groundwork for evidence-based healthcare. We will offer insights into the methodologies, outcomes, and repercussions of such joint efforts, underscoring their role in enhancing healthcare standards nationally.