Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Health Services Research 1/2006

Open Access 01-12-2006 | Research article

Gaining insight into the Clinical Practice Guideline development processes: qualitative study in a workshop to implement the GRADE proposal in Spain

Authors: Carlos Calderón, Rafael Rotaeche, Arritxu Etxebarria, Mercé Marzo, Rosa Rico, Marta Barandiaran

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2006

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The GRADE method represents a new approach to grading the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in the preparation of Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG). In the context of a pilot study to assess the implementability of the system in Spain, we considered it relevant to gain an insight into the significance of the perceptions and attitudes expressed by the actual experts participating in the system try-out.

Methods

Qualitative research with an ethnographic approach, through non-participant observation and focus groups within the context of a consensus workshop in which 19 CPG experts participated to evaluate the GRADE proposal using 12 evidence tables taken from hypertension, asthma and arthritis CPGs. The interventions were recorded, under a guarantee of confidentiality. The transcriptions and field notes were analyzed, based on a sociological discourse analysis model, and the provisional findings were re-sent to participants in order to improve their validity.

Results

1) Certain problems over procedure and terminology hindered the acceptance of this new method as a common reference system for the preparation of CPGs. 2). A greater closeness to clinical practice was accompanied by concerns over value judgments and subjectivity, with a demand for greater explicitness in the consensus process. 3). The type of "evidence" on which the guidelines are based, how and by whom the evidence is prepared, and what the role of the different actors should be, all constitute unresolved concerns in the CPG preparation and implementation processes. 4). The grading process is not neutral: professional background, prior experience and the degree of leadership all condition the participants' input and interactions.

Conclusion

The findings obtained allow the quantitative evaluation to be better interpreted and, in turn, go beyond the particularities of the GRADE method. Adaptation to the complexities of clinical practice, the need for carefully designed multi-disciplinary work and the reflexivity present in the CPG preparation process, all represent lines of debate that are necessary to improve the CPG quality in the Spanish health care sector.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Bonfill X, Marzo M: Guías de práctica clínica: tenerlas, que sean de calidad y que salgan del armario. Med Clin (Barc). 2003, 120: 496-497. 10.1157/13046151.CrossRef Bonfill X, Marzo M: Guías de práctica clínica: tenerlas, que sean de calidad y que salgan del armario. Med Clin (Barc). 2003, 120: 496-497. 10.1157/13046151.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Rico R, Gutiérrez-Ibarluzea I, Asua J, Navarro MA, Reyes A, Marín I, Briones E: Valoración de escalas y criterios para la evaluación de guías de práctica clínica. Rev Esp Salud Pública. 2004, 78 (4): 457-467. Rico R, Gutiérrez-Ibarluzea I, Asua J, Navarro MA, Reyes A, Marín I, Briones E: Valoración de escalas y criterios para la evaluación de guías de práctica clínica. Rev Esp Salud Pública. 2004, 78 (4): 457-467.
3.
go back to reference Aymerich M, Sánchez E: Del conocimiento científico de la investigación clínica a la cabecera del enfermo: las guías de práctica clínica y su implementación. Gac Sanit. 2004, 18: 326-334.CrossRef Aymerich M, Sánchez E: Del conocimiento científico de la investigación clínica a la cabecera del enfermo: las guías de práctica clínica y su implementación. Gac Sanit. 2004, 18: 326-334.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Atkins D, Eccles M, Flottorp S, Guyatt GH, Henry D, Hill S, Liberati A, O´Connell D, Oxman AD, Philips B, Schünemann H, Edejer TT, Vist GE, Williams JW, GRADE Working Group: Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations I: critical appraisal of existing approaches. The GRADE Working Group. BMC Health Serv Res. 2004, 4 (1): 38-10.1186/1472-6963-4-38.CrossRef Atkins D, Eccles M, Flottorp S, Guyatt GH, Henry D, Hill S, Liberati A, O´Connell D, Oxman AD, Philips B, Schünemann H, Edejer TT, Vist GE, Williams JW, GRADE Working Group: Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations I: critical appraisal of existing approaches. The GRADE Working Group. BMC Health Serv Res. 2004, 4 (1): 38-10.1186/1472-6963-4-38.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference GRADE Working Group: Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2004, 328: 1490-10.1136/bmj.328.7454.1490.CrossRef GRADE Working Group: Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2004, 328: 1490-10.1136/bmj.328.7454.1490.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Atkins D, Briss PA, Eccles M, Flottorp S, Guyatt GH, Harbour RT, Hill S, Jaeschke R, Liberati A, Magrini N, Mason J, O´Connell D, Oxman AD, Philips B, Schünemann H, Edejer TT, Vist GE, Williams JW, Grade Working Group: Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations II: pilot study of a new system. BMC Health Serv Res. 2005, 5: 25-10.1186/1472-6963-5-25.CrossRef Atkins D, Briss PA, Eccles M, Flottorp S, Guyatt GH, Harbour RT, Hill S, Jaeschke R, Liberati A, Magrini N, Mason J, O´Connell D, Oxman AD, Philips B, Schünemann H, Edejer TT, Vist GE, Williams JW, Grade Working Group: Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations II: pilot study of a new system. BMC Health Serv Res. 2005, 5: 25-10.1186/1472-6963-5-25.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Marzo M, Alonso P, Rotaeche R: ¿Cómo clasificar la calidad de la evidencia y la fuerza de las recomendaciones?. Aten Primaria. 2006, 37: 5-8. 10.1157/13083926.CrossRef Marzo M, Alonso P, Rotaeche R: ¿Cómo clasificar la calidad de la evidencia y la fuerza de las recomendaciones?. Aten Primaria. 2006, 37: 5-8. 10.1157/13083926.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Rotaeche R, Etxeberria A, Marzo M, Rico R, Alonso P: Experiencies with Spanish translation GRADE. 2005, Lyon: III GIN International Meeting Rotaeche R, Etxeberria A, Marzo M, Rico R, Alonso P: Experiencies with Spanish translation GRADE. 2005, Lyon: III GIN International Meeting
9.
go back to reference Murphy E, Dingwall R, Greatbatch D, Parker S, Watson P: Qualitative research methods in health technology assessment: a review of the literature. Health Technol Assess. 1998, 2 (16): 1-274.CrossRef Murphy E, Dingwall R, Greatbatch D, Parker S, Watson P: Qualitative research methods in health technology assessment: a review of the literature. Health Technol Assess. 1998, 2 (16): 1-274.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Popay J, Williams G: Qualitative research and evidence-based health care. J R Soc Med. 1998, 91: 32-37.CrossRef Popay J, Williams G: Qualitative research and evidence-based health care. J R Soc Med. 1998, 91: 32-37.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Green J, Britten N: Qualitative research and evidence based medicine. BMJ. 1998, 316: 1230-1232.CrossRef Green J, Britten N: Qualitative research and evidence based medicine. BMJ. 1998, 316: 1230-1232.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Giacomini MK: The rocky road: qualitative research as evidence. EBM notebook. 2001, 6: 4-6. Giacomini MK: The rocky road: qualitative research as evidence. EBM notebook. 2001, 6: 4-6.
13.
go back to reference Freeman AC, Sweeney K: Why general practitioners do not implement evidence: qualitative study. BMJ. 2001, 323: 1100-1102. 10.1136/bmj.323.7321.1100.CrossRef Freeman AC, Sweeney K: Why general practitioners do not implement evidence: qualitative study. BMJ. 2001, 323: 1100-1102. 10.1136/bmj.323.7321.1100.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Pagliari C, Grimshaw J: Impact of group structure and process on multidisciplinary evidence-based guideline development: an observational study. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. 2002, 8: 145-153. 10.1046/j.1365-2753.2002.00333.x.CrossRef Pagliari C, Grimshaw J: Impact of group structure and process on multidisciplinary evidence-based guideline development: an observational study. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. 2002, 8: 145-153. 10.1046/j.1365-2753.2002.00333.x.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Moreira T: Diversity in clinical guidelines: the role of repertoires of evaluation. Soc Sci Med. 2004, 60: 1975-1985. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.08.062.CrossRef Moreira T: Diversity in clinical guidelines: the role of repertoires of evaluation. Soc Sci Med. 2004, 60: 1975-1985. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.08.062.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Hammersley M, Atkinson P: Etnografía. Métodos de investigación. 1994, Barcelona, Paidós Hammersley M, Atkinson P: Etnografía. Métodos de investigación. 1994, Barcelona, Paidós
17.
go back to reference Walker R: Applied Qualitative Research. Edited by: Walker R. 1985, Hants, Gower Walker R: Applied Qualitative Research. Edited by: Walker R. 1985, Hants, Gower
18.
go back to reference Conde F: El análisis de la información en la investigación cualitativa. Introducción a la Investigación Cualitativa. Máster de Investigación en Atención Primaria. Edited by: Calderón C, Conde F, Fernández de Sanmamed MJ and Monistrol O. 2003, Barcelona, semFYC, UAB, Fundació Dr. Robert Conde F: El análisis de la información en la investigación cualitativa. Introducción a la Investigación Cualitativa. Máster de Investigación en Atención Primaria. Edited by: Calderón C, Conde F, Fernández de Sanmamed MJ and Monistrol O. 2003, Barcelona, semFYC, UAB, Fundació Dr. Robert
19.
go back to reference Calderón C, Rotaeche R, Martínez P, Alonso MT, Manrique E, Sampietro S: ¿Cómo investigamos? Evaluación cualitativa de un estudio sobre calidad del control de los pacientes diabéticos. Aten Primaria. 2002, 30.Suplemento I.XXII Congreso Nacional de Medicina de Familia y Comunitaria: 14. Calderón C, Rotaeche R, Martínez P, Alonso MT, Manrique E, Sampietro S: ¿Cómo investigamos? Evaluación cualitativa de un estudio sobre calidad del control de los pacientes diabéticos. Aten Primaria. 2002, 30.Suplemento I.XXII Congreso Nacional de Medicina de Familia y Comunitaria: 14.
20.
go back to reference Shiffman RN, Shekelle P, Overhage JM, Slutsky J, Grimshaw J, Deshpande AM: Standardized Reporting of Clinical Practice Guidelines: A Proposal from the Conference on Guideline Standardization. Ann Intern Med. 2003, 139 (6): 493-498.CrossRef Shiffman RN, Shekelle P, Overhage JM, Slutsky J, Grimshaw J, Deshpande AM: Standardized Reporting of Clinical Practice Guidelines: A Proposal from the Conference on Guideline Standardization. Ann Intern Med. 2003, 139 (6): 493-498.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Christiaens T, De Backer D, Burgers J, Baerheim A: Guidelines, evidence, and cultural factors. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2004, 22: 141-145. 10.1080/02813430410006521.CrossRef Christiaens T, De Backer D, Burgers J, Baerheim A: Guidelines, evidence, and cultural factors. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2004, 22: 141-145. 10.1080/02813430410006521.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Griffiths F, Green E, Tsouroufli M: The nature of medical evidence and its inherent uncertainty for the clinical consultation: qualitative study. BMJ. 2005, 330: 511-515. 10.1136/bmj.38336.482720.8F.CrossRef Griffiths F, Green E, Tsouroufli M: The nature of medical evidence and its inherent uncertainty for the clinical consultation: qualitative study. BMJ. 2005, 330: 511-515. 10.1136/bmj.38336.482720.8F.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Greenhalgh T: "Is my practice evidence-based?": Should be answered in qualitative, as well as quantitative terms. BMJ. 1996, 313: 957-958.CrossRef Greenhalgh T: "Is my practice evidence-based?": Should be answered in qualitative, as well as quantitative terms. BMJ. 1996, 313: 957-958.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Garfield FB, Garfield JM: Clinical judgment and clinical practice guidelines. Intl J of Technology Assessment in Health Care. 2000, 16: 1050-1060. 10.1017/S0266462300103113.CrossRef Garfield FB, Garfield JM: Clinical judgment and clinical practice guidelines. Intl J of Technology Assessment in Health Care. 2000, 16: 1050-1060. 10.1017/S0266462300103113.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Heathfield HA, Pitty D, Hanka R: Evaluating information technology in health care: barriers and challenges. BMJ. 1998, 316: 1959-1961.CrossRef Heathfield HA, Pitty D, Hanka R: Evaluating information technology in health care: barriers and challenges. BMJ. 1998, 316: 1959-1961.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Cabana MD, Rand CS, Powe NR, Wu AW, Wilson MH, Abboud PC, Rubin HR: Why Don't Physicians Follow Clinical Practice Guidelines?: A Framework for Improvement. JAMA. 1999, 282: 1458-1465. 10.1001/jama.282.15.1458.CrossRef Cabana MD, Rand CS, Powe NR, Wu AW, Wilson MH, Abboud PC, Rubin HR: Why Don't Physicians Follow Clinical Practice Guidelines?: A Framework for Improvement. JAMA. 1999, 282: 1458-1465. 10.1001/jama.282.15.1458.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Gabbay J, le May A: Evidence based guidelines or collectively constructed "mindlines"?. Ethnographic study of knowledge management in primary care. BMJ. 2004, 329: 1013-10.1136/bmj.329.7473.1013.CrossRef Gabbay J, le May A: Evidence based guidelines or collectively constructed "mindlines"?. Ethnographic study of knowledge management in primary care. BMJ. 2004, 329: 1013-10.1136/bmj.329.7473.1013.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Grimshaw J, Eccles M, Russell I: Developing clinically valid practice guidelines. J Eval Clin Pract. 1995, 1: 37-48.CrossRef Grimshaw J, Eccles M, Russell I: Developing clinically valid practice guidelines. J Eval Clin Pract. 1995, 1: 37-48.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Guideline Development Methods: Information for National Collaborating Centres and Guideline Developers. 2005, London, National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Available from: www.nice.org Guideline Development Methods: Information for National Collaborating Centres and Guideline Developers. 2005, London, National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Available from: www.nice.org
30.
go back to reference Jaime J: Introduction: Practice Gidelines. Helpful Aids or Paradigm Shift?. Intl J of Technology Assessment in Health Care. 2000, 16: 957-958. 10.1017/S0266462300103022.CrossRef Jaime J: Introduction: Practice Gidelines. Helpful Aids or Paradigm Shift?. Intl J of Technology Assessment in Health Care. 2000, 16: 957-958. 10.1017/S0266462300103022.CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Murphy MK, Black NA, Lamping DL, McKee CM, Sanderson CFB, Askham J, Marteau T: Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development. Health Technol Assess. 1998, 2 (3): 1-88.CrossRef Murphy MK, Black NA, Lamping DL, McKee CM, Sanderson CFB, Askham J, Marteau T: Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development. Health Technol Assess. 1998, 2 (3): 1-88.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Raine R, Sanderson C, Black N: Developing clincal guidelines: a challenge to current methods. BMJ. 2005, 331: 631-633. 10.1136/bmj.331.7517.631.CrossRef Raine R, Sanderson C, Black N: Developing clincal guidelines: a challenge to current methods. BMJ. 2005, 331: 631-633. 10.1136/bmj.331.7517.631.CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Ibáñez J: Del algoritmo al sujeto. Perspectivas de la investigación social. 1985, Madrid, Siglo XXI Ibáñez J: Del algoritmo al sujeto. Perspectivas de la investigación social. 1985, Madrid, Siglo XXI
Metadata
Title
Gaining insight into the Clinical Practice Guideline development processes: qualitative study in a workshop to implement the GRADE proposal in Spain
Authors
Carlos Calderón
Rafael Rotaeche
Arritxu Etxebarria
Mercé Marzo
Rosa Rico
Marta Barandiaran
Publication date
01-12-2006
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2006
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-6-138

Other articles of this Issue 1/2006

BMC Health Services Research 1/2006 Go to the issue