Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T07:35:48.133Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

CHARACTERISTICS OF HIGH-QUALITY GUIDELINES

Evaluation of 86 Clinical Guidelines Developed in Ten European Countries and Canada

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2003

Jako S. Burgers ,
Françoise A. Cluzeau ,
Steven E. Hanna ,
Claire Hunt  and
Richard Grol
Jako S. Burgers
Affiliation:
University Medical Centre Nijmegen
Françoise A. Cluzeau
Affiliation:
St. George's Hospital Medical School
Steven E. Hanna
Affiliation:
McMaster University
Claire Hunt
Affiliation:
Institute of Psychiatry
Richard Grol
Affiliation:
University Medical Centre Nijmegen and The AGREE Collaboration
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: To identify predictors of high-quality clinical practice guidelines.

Methods: A total of 86 guidelines from 11 countries were assessed by four independent appraisers per guideline using the AGREE instrument (23 items). Six aspects of guideline development were considered to explain the variation in quality scores: care level (primary/secondary care), scope (diagnosis/treatment), type of guideline (new/update), year of publication, type of agency (governmental/professional), and whether the guideline was produced within a structured and coordinated program.

Results: Guidelines produced within a guideline program and by governmental agencies had higher scores than their counterparts. Differences in the applicability of the guidelines could not be explained by the variables studied.

Conclusions: To ensure high quality, clinical guidelines should be produced within a structured and coordinated program. Professional organizations or specialist societies that aim to develop guidelines may adopt quality criteria from leading guideline agencies.

Keywords

Practice guidelinesQuality of health careHealth policy
Type
GENERAL ESSAYS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , January 2003 , pp. 148 - 157
Copyright
© 2003 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)