The quality of four psychology practice guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) have been shown to improve healthcare services and clinical outcomes. However, they are useful resources only to the degree that they are developed according to the most rigorous standards. Multiple studies have demonstrated significant variability between CPGs with regard to specific indicators of quality. The Ordre des psychologues du Québec (OPQ), the College of psychologists of Quebec, has published several CPGs that are intended to provide empirically supported guidance for psychologists in the areas of assessment, diagnosis, general functioning, treatment and other decision-making support. The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality of these CPGs. METHODS: The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument was used to assess the quality of the CPGs. RESULTS: Our results show that although there have been some modest improvements in quality of the CPGs over time, there are important methodological inadequacies in all CPGs evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study demonstrate the need for more methodological rigour in CPGs development as such, recommendations to improve CPG quality are discussed.

Can We Develop Evidence-Based Guidelines Without Research Expertise?

The development and implementation of clinical practice guidelines has flourished over the past two decades. Unfortunately, many studies have found that the quality of such guidelines is highly variable (Alonso-Coello et al. in Qual Safe Health Care 19:e58, 2010; MacQueen et al. in Can J Psychiatry 62:11-23, 2016); research suggests that some of the guidelines used in psychology have been developed using poor methods for guideline development (Bennett et al. in Depress Anxiety 35:330-340, 2018; Trepanier et al. in: Can Psychol 58: 211-217, 2017). While there remains a dearth of research in this area, typically, it is guidelines themselves that are examined by researchers, while too little attention is paid to the developers, and more specifically to how the guideline development groups are composed and the nature of the expertise of those involved in developing the guidelines. Given the importance of grounding guidelines in science, it is key that guideline development groups be comprised of research experts that will help ensure that this essential aspect be respected. In this brief paper, we provide findings from a recent study in which group composition as well as the expertise of guideline development committee members at the Order of Psychologists of Quebec (OPQ) was examined, as defined by academic research productivity. As results highlighted a clear imbalance between clinical and research expertise in these specific committees, with only a small percentage of researchers being represented, we conclude that major improvements need to be made for research to properly reach practitioners and make recommendations to facilitate this.

The relationship between cognitive errors and interpersonal patterns in depressed women.

Individuals with depression process information in an overly negative or biased way (e.g., Henriques & Leitenberg, 2002) and demonstrate significant interpersonal dysfunction (e.g., Zlotnick, Kohn, Keitner, & Della Grotta, 2000). This study examined the relationship between cognitive errors (CEs) and interpersonal interactions in early psychotherapy sessions of 25 female patients with major depression. Transcripts were rated for CEs using the Cognitive Error Rating Scale (Drapeau, Perry, & Dunkley, 2008). Interpersonal patterns were assessed using the Structural Analysis of Social Behavior (Benjamin, 1974). Significant associations were found between CEs and markers of interpersonal functioning in selected contexts. The implications of these findings in bridging the gap between research and practice, enhancing treatment outcome, and improving therapist training are discussed.