Interprofessional collaboration and patient-reported outcomes in inpatient care: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Interprofessional collaboration (IPC) is seen as the "gold standard" of comprehensive care, but credible evidence concerning the effects on patient-reported outcomes (PRO) is lacking. The aim of this systematic review is to study the effect of IPC on PRO in inpatient care. METHODS: We systematically searched six electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science/Social Science Citation Index, CENTRAL (Cochrane Library), Current Contents (LIVIVO), CINAHL, and Embase) for studies published between 1997 and 2021. Additional studies were identified through citation tracking, manually searching the Internet and Google Scholar, and consultation of experts. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the RoB 2 tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and ROBINS-I for non-randomized studies (NRS). The included controlled before-and-after study (CBA) was assessed using both the ROBINS-I and the Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) quality criteria. Results were synthesized through narrative description, grouping, and thematic analysis of extracted data. RESULTS: The search yielded 10,213 records, from which 22 studies (16 RCTs, five NRS, and one CBA) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. In all but five studies, RoB was assessed as being high (RoB 2) resp. critical or serious (ROBINS-I). Within these 22 studies, nine inductively derived outcomes were assessed: (i) quality of life, (ii) coping, (iii) functional ability and health status, (iv) psychiatric morbidity, (v) pain, (vi) managing one's own health care, (vii) treatment success, (viii) satisfaction, and (ix) therapeutic relationship. While some studies do not report effect estimates, and some of the reported effects appear to be imprecisely estimated, the overall results indicate that IPC may affect PRO positively across all outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Due to high clinical heterogeneity and high RoB, the question whether IPC affects PRO cannot be answered conclusively. Methodically rigorous studies are needed in order to answer the question of effectiveness of IPC. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42017073900.

[GRADE equity guidelines 1: Considering health equity in GRADE guideline development - introduction and rationale]. / GRADE-Leitlinien zu Gerechtigkeit 1. Berücksichtigung der Gerechtigkeit im Gesundheitswesen bei der Entwicklung von GRADE-Leitlinien: Einführung und Hintergründe.

OBJECTIVES: This article introduces the rationale and methods for explicitly considering health equity in the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology for developing clinical, public health, and health system guidelines. This article is a German translation of the original version published in English. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched for guideline methodology articles, conceptual articles about health equity, and examples of guidelines that considered health equity explicitly. We held three meetings with GRADE Working Group members and invited comments from the GRADE Working Group listserve. RESULTS: We developed three articles on incorporating equity considerations into the overall approach to guideline development, rating certainty, and assembling the evidence base and evidence to decision and/or recommendation. CONCLUSION: Clinical and public health guidelines have a role to play in promoting health equity by explicitly considering equity in the process of guideline development.

[GRADE: Using evidence to decision frameworks for adoption, adaptation and de novo generation of trustworthy guideline recommendations - GRADE-ADOLOPMENT]. / GRADE Evidence-to-Decision-Tabellen für die Übernahme, Anpassung und De-novo-Entwicklung von vertrauenswürdigen Empfehlungen: GRADE-ADOLOPMENT.

BACKGROUND: Guideline developers can: (1) adopt existing recommendations from others; (2) adapt existing recommendations to their own context; or (3) create recommendations de novo. Monetary and nonmonetary resources, credibility, maximization of uptake, as well as logical arguments should guide the choice of the approach and processes. OBJECTIVES: To describe a potentially efficient model for guideline production based on adoption, adaptation, and/or de novo development of recommendations utilizing the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We applied the model in a new national guideline program producing 22 practice guidelines. We searched for relevant evidence that informs the direction and strength of a recommendation. We then produced GRADE EtDs for guideline panels to develop recommendations. RESULTS: In two waves, a total of 80 EtD frameworks was produced approximately 4 months and 146 EtDs in about 6 months. Use of the EtD frameworks allowed panel members to understand judgments of other guideline groups about the criteria that bear on guideline recommendations and then make their own judgments about those criteria in a systematic approach. CONCLUSION: The "GRADE-ADOLOPMENT" approach to guideline production combines adoption, adaptation, and, as needed, de novo development of recommendations. If guideline developers apply EtD criteria more widely and make their work publically available, this approach should prove even more useful.

[GRADE: Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks - a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 2: Clinical guidelines]. / GRADE: Von der Evidenz zur Empfehlung oder Entscheidung - ein systematischer und transparenter Ansatz, um gut informierte Entscheidungen im Gesundheitswesen zu treffen. 2: Klinische Praxisleitlinien.

Clinical guidelines are based on the best available evidence and produced systematically. In this context, the transparent presentation of the decision-making process from evidence to recommendation is indispensable. The Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks for clinical practice recommendations enables guideline panels to structure their approach and make it comprehensible. The EtD frameworks include three main sections: formulating the question, assessing the evidence and "Additional considerations" for each criterion, and drawing conclusions. This article focuses on the selection and operationalization of those criteria of the EtD framework that are relevant for clinical recommendations in guidelines. These include the priority of the problem, benefits and harms, certainty of the evidence, importance of the outcome, balance, resource use, equity, acceptability and feasibility. To make a recommendation, a panel must consider the implication and importance of each of the above judgments. The EtD framework helps ensure consideration of key criteria that determine whether an intervention should be recommended and that judgments are informed by the best available evidence.

[GRADE Guidelines: 16. GRADE evidence to decision frameworks for tests in clinical practice and public health]. / GRADE-Leitlinien: 16. Von der Evidenz zur Empfehlung oder Entscheidung ­ Vorgehen nach GRADE für Tests in der klinischen Praxis und in Public Health.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) interactive Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks for tests and test strategies for clinical, public health or coverage decisions. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: As part of the GRADE Working Group's DECIDE project we conducted workshops, user testing with systematic review authors, guideline developers and other decision makers, and piloted versions of the EtD framework. RESULTS: EtD frameworks for tests share the structure, explicitness, and transparency of other EtD frameworks. They require specifying the purpose of the test, linked or related management and the key outcomes of concern for different test results and subsequent management. The EtD criteria address test accuracy and assessments of the certainty of the additional evidence necessary for decision-making. When there is no direct evidence of test effects on patient important outcomes, formal or informal modeling is needed to estimate effects. We describe the EtD criteria based on examples developed with GRADEpro (www.gradepro.org), GRADE's software that also provides interactive Summary of Findings Tables. CONCLUSION: EtD frameworks for developing recommendations and making decisions about tests lay out the sequential steps in reviewing and assessing the different types of evidence that need to be linked.

Conflicts of interest among authors of medical guidelines: an analysis of guidelines produced by German specialist societies.

BACKGROUND: Conflicts of interest can bias the recommendations of clinical guidelines. In 2010, the Association of Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften, AWMF) revised its rules about how conflicts of interest in guidelines should be managed. METHODS: All S2 and S3 guidelines in the AWMF database that were created in the years 2009-2011 were independently examined by two reviewers each (TL, MG, SC, BW, LF, SS). Information on conflicts of interest was extracted and descriptively analyzed. The effects of the new AWMF rules were studied with a before-and-after comparison. RESULTS: 60 (20%) of the 297 guidelines studied contained explicit declarations of conflict of interest by their authors. 680 authors (49%) stated that they had financial relationships that constituted a conflict of interest; 86% declared conflicts arising from membership in specialty societies or professional associations. From 2009 to 2011, there was a substantial rise in the frequency of conflict-of-interest declarations in guidelines (8% of 256 guidelines that were created before the AWMF revised its rules in 2010 and 95% of 41 guidelines created afterward). The percentage of persons declaring financial conflicts of interest rose after the new rules were introduced, while the mode of documentation of conflict-of-interest evaluation and of any measures that might have been taken as a result remained unchanged. CONCLUSION: From 2011 onward, all conflict-of-interest declarations by guideline authors have been published in the AWMF database. There is no current standard for the evaluation and management of conflicts of interest in guideline-creating groups, and this situation urgently needs to be remedied.

[After seven years of National Disease Management Guidelines: quo vadis?]. / 7 Jahre Nationale VersorgungsLeitlinien (NVL)--Quo vadis?

After seven years the National Disease Management Guidelines Programme (German DM-CPG Programme) that was established under the auspices of the German Medical Association, the National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians and the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany has been widely accepted by both health care professionals and patients. DM-CPGs are available as tools for knowledge and quality management for widespread chronic diseases showing need for improvement in treatment pathways and coordination between health care providers. The main objective of the German DM-CPG Programme is to establish consensus among the medical professions on evidence-based key recommendations covering all sectors of health care provision and facilitating the coordination of care for the individual patient over time and across interfaces. German DM-CPGs provide a conceptual basis for disease management and integrative care aiming at the implementation of best practice recommendations for prevention, acute care, rehabilitation, chronic care and management aspects for high priority health care topics. Thus, representatives of all disciplines, professions and patients concerned with the topic of an individual German DM-CPG are involved in the development process. The methodology of guideline development is in accordance with international standards. However, the improvement of strategies for effective implementation and continuous update remain challenging. Future work will also focus on content-related aspects such as co-morbidity, gender and migration background.

[Diversity in spite of standards: the special features of NDGMs]. / Trotz Standards--Vielfalt im Programm: Die Besonderheiten der NVL.

For seven years the German National Disease Management Guidelines Programme (NDMG Programme) has been supported by its funding bodies: the German Medical Association, the National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians, and the Association of Scientific Medical Societies. The objectives of the NDMG Programme are to develop and to implement comprehensive national clinical guidelines for the management of selected illnesses. Key points of NDMG methodology are the strict adherence to the principles of evidence-based medicine as well as the avoidance of contradictory recommendations by means of neutrally facilitated consensus rounds. Despite the standardised NDMG methodology each guideline has individual structural and content features that make it unique. For example, the complex illness type 2 diabetes is presented in topic- and problem-oriented NDMG modules. For unipolar depression, the NDMG was simultaneously developed as a S3 guideline. Furthermore each NDMG group was faced with its own content-based challenges. For instance, in the case of the NDMG Low-back Pain the guideline group intensely and controversially discussed the definition of unspecific low-back pain. The NDMG Asthma does not solely address adults, but also children and adolescents, and the NDMG Heart Failure for the first time covers other health care relevant aspects such as multimorbidity and psychosocial factors in detail. The following article aims to deliver insight into the diversity of the development of National Disease Management Guidelines and to demonstrate the complexity of guideline development.