Overview of methods of development, adaptation, implementation and evaluation of public health guidelines
Authors:
M. Špačková 1,2; K. Ivanová 1; R. Líčeník 3
Published in:
Pracov. Lék., 73, 2021, No. 3-4, s. 72-82.
Category:
Review Papers
Overview
The organization of public health (PH) interventions usually does not concern the doctor himself, but whole groups of experts, professional societies up to political decisions. Evidence-based public health (EBPH) also affects population health policy. In this context, „evidence-based policy“ is sometimes referred to, where evidence of the effectiveness and efficiency of the intended intervention is also required in policy making. The most pressing problem of PH is usually not enough evidence that „something“ is to be done, but the lack of evidence for „what“ or „how“ to be done. In the broad field of EBPH, there is still a lack of conceptual frameworks setting out „how much“ and „how good“ evidence is needed, or at least sufficient, for policy decisions on public health interventions and programs. The need to harmonize and standardize the development of guidelines, including the evaluation of their quality and regular re-evaluation, are among the most fundamental requirements.
Knowledge of the epidemiological situation in a particular country or region, and over given period of time, as well as modeling of further possible developments, are essential for making relevant recommendations. For example, the outputs of surveillance systems, risk assessments, cost-effectiveness analyzes, or consensual „evidence“ also serve as evidence for public health. The process of guidelines development consists of the phases of planning, realization, publication, implementation, evaluation, and revision. Proven standardized methods are to be used in each of these phases.
This article aims to summarize methods of creating, adapting, implementing, and evaluating evidence-based best practices in public health.
Keywords:
public health – health policy – evidence-based public health – KEYWORDS best practices
Sources
1. Malina, A. Úvod do veřejného zdravotnictví pro nelékaře. 1. vydání. Praha, Institut postgraduálního vzdělávání ve zdravotnictví, 2013, 65 s. ISBN: 978-80-87023-29-7.
2. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Operational tool on rapid risk assessment methodology. Technical report. Stockholm. [online]. 2019. [cit. 2021-03-04]. Dostupné na www: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications- data/operational-tool-rapid-risk-assessment-methodology- ecdc-2019.
3. Kebza, V. Psychosociální determinanty zdraví. 1. vydání. Academia; 2005. s 263. ISBN: 80-200-1307-5.
4. Klugar, M. Systematická review ve zdravotnictví. Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého, 2015. 116 s. ISBN: 978-80-244-4782-7.
5. The Campbell Collaboration. Welcome. [online] 2021 [cit. 2021-06-02] Dostupné na www: https://www.campbellcollaboration. org/.
6. Ministerstvo pro místní rozvoj. Metodika systematického přehledu poznatků pro tvorbu a evaluaci veřejných strategií, ed. M. Nekola, et al. Centrum pro sociální a ekonomické strategie, FSV UK, Praha; 2017.
7. Harder, T., Sin, M. A., Bosch-Capblanch, X., et al. Towards a framework for evaluating and grading evidence in public health. Health Policy, 2015, 119, 6, s. 732–736.
8. Klugar, M., Klugarová, J., et al. Metodické postupy pro vytvoření a posuzování nově vytvořených KDP. Agentura pro zdravotnický výzkum České republiky, [online] Verze 2.1, leden 2020. [cit. 2021-03-19] Dostupné na www: https://kdp.uzis.cz/
9. Líčeník, R. Klinické doporučené postupy II. 1. vydání. Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci, 2013. ISBN: 978-80-244-3983-9.
10. Alonso-Coello, P., Schünemann, H. J., Moberg, J., et al. Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 2: Clinical practice guidelines. BMJ, 2016, 353, s. 2016.
11. Aromataris, E., Munn, Z. Chapter 1: JBI Systematic Reviews. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z (Eds.). JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI, 2020. [online] 2020. [cit. 2021-05-16] Dostupné na www: https://wiki.jbi.global/display/MANUAL/Chapter+1%3A+- JBI+Systematic+Reviews.
12. PRISMA Transparent reporting of systematic reviews and meta- analyses. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). [online] 2021 [cit. 2021-05-16]. Dostupné na www: http://www.prisma-statement.org/.
13. Allen, I. E., Olkin, I. Estimating time to conduct a meta-analysis from number of citations retrieved. JAMA, 1999, 282, 7, s. 634–635.
14. Pokorná, A., Dolanová, D. Metodika tvorby klinické (výzkumné) otázky. In: Kolektiv autorů. Metodika ke zpracování závěrečné práce pro vybrané nelékařské zdravotnické obory. Masarykova univerzita, Brno, 2019. ISBN: 978-80-210-9371-3.
15. Marečková, J., Klugarová, J. Evidence-based health care. Zdravotnictví založené na vědeckých důkazech. 1. vydání. Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci, 2015, s. 93. ISBN 978- 80-244-4784-1.
16. Higgins, J. P., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., et al. (eds). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.2 (updated February 2021). Cochrane, 2021. Dostupné na www: www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
17. Aromataris, E., Fernandez, R. S., Godfrey, C., et al. Methodology for JBI umbrella reviews. Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers‘ Manual: 2014 edition, Supplement, p.1–34. Australia: The Joanna Briggs Institute.
18. Shea, B. J., Reeves, B. C., Wells, G., et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ, 2017, 358, s. j4008.
19. Wells, G., Shea, B., O’connell, D., et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute. Clinical Epidemiology. [online]. 2016 [cit. 2020-12-04]. Dostupné na www: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/ oxford.asp.
20. VanderWeele, T. J. Confounding and effect modification: distribution and measure. Epidemiol Methods, 2012, 1, 1, s. 55–82.
21. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Operational tool on rapid risk assessment methodology. Technical report. Stockholm. [online]. 2019. [cit. 2021-03-04]. Dostupné na www: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/operational- tool-rapid-risk-assessment-methodology-ecdc-2019.
22. German, R. R., Horan, J. M., Lee, L. M., et al. Updated guidelines for evaluating public health surveillance systems; recommendations from the Guidelines Working Group. In: Recommendations and reports: Morbidity and mortality weekly report. MMWR, 2001, 50, s. RR–13.
23. Petersen, A. C., Janssen, P. H., van der Sluijs, J. P., et al. Guidance for uncertainty assessment and communication. BPL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. [online]. 2013. [cit. 2021-04-19]. Dostupné na www: https://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/ guidance-for-uncertainty-assessment-and-communication.
24. Brownson, R. C., Fielding, J. E., Maylahn, C. M. Evidence-based public health: a fundamental concept for public health practice. Annual review of public health, 2009, 30, s. 175–201.
25. Líčeník, R., Kurfürst, P. AGREE II: Nástroj pro hodnocení doporučených postupů pro výzkum a evaluaci. Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci, s. 34. 2013. ISBN 978-80-244-3836-8.
26. Suchý, M., Bednařík, J., Škoda, O., et al. Vývoj Národní sady klinických standardů a ukazatelů zdravotní péče a první výsledky v oboru neurologie. Cesk Slov Neurol N, 2010, 73/106, 5, s. 569–577.
27. Tugwell, P., Welch, V. A., Karunananthan, S., et al. When to replicate systematic reviews of interventions: consensus checklist. BMJ, 2020, 370. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m2864.
28. Jones, J., Hunter, D. Consensus methods for medical and health services research. BMJ, 1995, 311, 7001, s. 376.
29. The EQUATOR Network. STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology. STROBE Statement. Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research. [online]. 2009. [cit. 2021-05-01]. Dostupné na www: https://www. equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/strobe/.
30. PLOS Medicine Editors. Observational studies: getting clear about transparency. PLoS Med, 2014, 11, 8, s. e1001711.
31. Stroup, D., Berlin, J., Morton, S., et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. JAMA, 2000, 283, 15, s. 2008–2012.
32. Field, N., Cohen, T., Struelens, M. J., et al. Strengthening the Reporting of Molecular Epidemiology for Infectious Diseases (STROME-ID): an extension of the STROBE statement. Lancet Infect Dis, 2014, 14, 4, s. 341–352.
33. CONSORT Transparent Reporting of Trials. Welcome to the CONSORT Website. [online]. 2010 [cit. 2021-05-09]. Dostupné na www: http://www.consort-statement.org/.
34. Des Jarlais, D. C., Lyles, C., Crepaz, N., et al. Improving the reporting quality of nonrandomized evaluations of behavioral and public health interventions: the TREND statement. Am J Public Health, 2004, 94, 3, s. 361–366.
35. The EQUATOR Network. STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology. STROBE Statement. Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research. [online]. 2009. [cit. 2021-05-01]. Dostupné na www: https://www. equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/strobe/.
36. Brouwers, M. C., Kerkvliet, K., Spithoff, K., et al. The AGREE Reporting Checklist: a tool to improve reporting of clinical practice guidelines. BMJ, 2016, s. 352.
37. Chen, Y., Yang, K., Marušić, A., et al. A reporting tool for practice guidelines in health care: the RIGHT statement. Ann Intern Med, 2017, 166, 2, s. 128–132.
38. Yao, X., Ma, J., Wang, Q., et al. A comparison of AGREE and RIGHT: which clinical practice guideline reporting checklist should be followed by guideline developers? J Gen Intern Med, 2019, s. 1–5.
39. Greenaway, C., Pareek, M., Abou Chakra, C-N., et al. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening for latent tuberculosis among migrants in the EU/EEA: a systematic review. Euro Surveill, 2018, 23, 14, s. 17-00543.
40. Donev, D., Zaletel-Kragelj, L., Bjegovic, V., et al. Measuring the burden of disease: disability adjusted life year (DALY). EGEMS (Wash DC), 2010, 30, 715, s. 30.
41. Conway, P. H., Clancy, C. Comparative-effectiveness research – implications of the Federal Coordinating Council‘s report. N Engl J Med, 2009, 361, 4, s. 328.
42. Stone, S. P., Cooper, B. S., Kibbler, C. C., et al. The ORION statement: guidelines for transparent reporting of outbreak reports and intervention studies of nosocomial infection. J Antimicrob Chemother, 2007, 59, 5, s. 833–840.
43. Voirin, N., Barret, B., Metzger, M-H., et al. Hospital-acquired influenza: a synthesis using the Outbreak Reports and Intervention Studies of Nosocomial Infection (ORION) statement. J Hosp Infect, 2009, 71, 1, s. 1–14.
44. AGREE. Advancing the science of practice guidelines. AGREE II. [online]. 2021. [cit. 2021-05-22]. Dostupné na www: https:// www.agreetrust.org/agree-ii/.
45. Calain, P., Sa’Da, C. A. Coincident polio and Ebola crises expose similar fault lines in the current global health regime. Confl Health, 2015, 9, 1, s. 1–7.
46. Koplin, J. J., Selgelid, M. J. Burden of proof in bioethics. Bioethics, 2015, 29, 9, s. 597–603.
47. World Health Organization. WHO guidelines on ethical issues in public health surveillance. 2017 Geneva. ISBN: 978-92-4-151265- 7.
48. World Health Organization. Guidance for managing ethical issues in infectious disease outbreaks. World Health Organization, 2016, s. 65. ISBN: 9789241549837.
49. World Health Organization. Ethics guidance for the implementation of the End TB strategy. World Health Organization, 2017, s. 64. ISBN: 9789241512114.
50. Brownson, R. C., Fielding, J. E., Green, L. W. Building capacity for evidence-based public health: reconciling the pulls of practice and the push of research. Annual review of public health, 2018, 39, s. 27–53.
Labels
Hygiene and epidemiology Hyperbaric medicine Occupational medicineArticle was published in
Occupational Medicine
2021 Issue 3-4
Most read in this issue
- Monitoring of indoor air of operating rooms in practice in a tertiary-type medical facility
- Tularemia as an occupational disease
- Case report – (un)professional carpal tunnel syndrome
- Respiratory diseases in workers exposed to metalworking fluids