The Quality of Six Clinical Practice Guidelines in Health and Social Sciences: Are We on the Right Track?

Interest in the development and promotion of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) continues to grow in many professions. However, the potential benefits associated with CPGs are dependent upon their quality. A number of studies have shown that the quality of CPGs varies greatly. Furthermore, the quality of many of the CPGs used in health and social sciences has yet to be examined. In light of this, the aim of this study was to examine the quality of CPGs that focus on intervention and care management in mental health in Quebec. A search of Quebec regulatory bodies websites was conducted and six CPGs were included in this study. The CPGs were assessed by four trained raters using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. Items scores and domains scores were considered to determine the quality of the six CPGs. Results show that many of the CPGs did not achieve minimum ratings for numerous quality checks. Notably, none of the CPGs were designed using a rigorous methodology, they lacked transparency throughout the development process and insufficient consideration was given to the applicability of the recommendations they included. Because these shortcomings may hinder the efficacy and utilization of CPGs, suggestions to improve the development of CPGs and to improve their 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.

Assessing the quality of seven clinical practice guidelines from four professional regulatory bodies in Quebec: What's the verdict?

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have become a common feature in the health and social care fields, as they promote evidence-based practice and aim to improve quality of care and patient outcome. However, the benefits of the recommendations reported in CPGs are only as good as the quality of the CPGs themselves. Indeed, rigorous development and strategies for reporting are significant precursors to successful implementation of the recommendations that are proposed. Unfortunately, research has demonstrated that there is much variability in their level of quality. Furthermore, the quality of many CPGs has yet to be examined. The aim of the present study was to assess the quality of seven CPGs from four Quebec professional regulatory bodies pertaining to clinical evaluations in the fields of medicine, psychoeducation, psychotherapy, and social work. METHODS: The seven Quebec CPGs were assessed by four trained appraisers using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II guideline evaluation tool. RESULTS: Results suggest that while some quality criteria were met, most were not, denoting that these CPGs are of sub-optimal quality. CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight that there is still a lot to be done in order to improve the rigour and transparency with which scientific evidence is assessed and applied when developing CPGs. Impacts regarding the implementation of these CPGs are discussed in light of their use in clinical practice.