Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 May 31;8(5):e63715.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0063715. Print 2013.

World Health Organization guideline development: an evaluation

Affiliations

World Health Organization guideline development: an evaluation

David Sinclair et al. PLoS One. .

Erratum in

  • PLoS One. 2013;8(9). doi:10.1371/annotation/fd04e7c6-0d40-4d2c-a382-c5ad10074c99

Abstract

Background: Research in 2007 showed that World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations were largely based on expert opinion, rarely used systematic evidence-based methods, and did not follow the organization's own "Guidelines for Guidelines". In response, the WHO established a "Guidelines Review Committee" (GRC) to implement and oversee internationally recognized standards. We examined the impact of these changes on WHO guideline documents and explored senior staff's perceptions of the new procedures.

Methods and findings: We used the AGREE II guideline appraisal tool to appraise ten GRC-approved guidelines from nine WHO departments, and ten pre-GRC guidelines matched by department and topic. We interviewed 20 senior staff across 16 departments and analyzed the transcripts using the framework approach. Average AGREE II scores for GRC-approved guidelines were higher across all six AGREE domains compared with pre-GRC guidelines. The biggest changes were noted for "Rigour of Development" (up 37.6%, from 30.7% to 68.3%) and "Editorial Independence" (up 52.7%, from 20.9% to 73.6%). Four main themes emerged from the interviews: (1) high standards were widely recognized as essential for WHO credibility, particularly with regard to conflicts of interest; (2) views were mixed on whether WHO needed a single quality assurance mechanism, with some departments purposefully bypassing the procedures; (3) staff expressed some uncertainties in applying the GRADE approach, with departmental staff concentrating on technicalities while the GRC remained concerned the underlying principles were not fully institutionalized; (4) the capacity to implement the new standards varied widely, with many departments looking to an overstretched GRC for technical support.

Conclusions: Since 2007, WHO guideline development methods have become more systematic and transparent. However, some departments are bypassing the procedures, and as yet neither the GRC, nor the quality assurance standards they have set, are fully embedded within the organization.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

References

    1. Oxman AD, Lavis JN, Fretheim A (2007) Use of evidence in WHO recommendations. Lancet 369: 1883–1889. - PubMed
    1. WHO (2003) Guidelines for WHO Guidelines. WHO Press, World Health Organization, Geneva Available: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2003/EIP_GPE_EQC_2003_1.pdf. Accessed August 2012.
    1. Oxman AD, Fretheim A, Schünemann HJ (2006) SURE (2006) Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: introduction. Health Res Policy Syst 4: 12. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Schünemann HJ, Fretheim A, Oxman AD (2006) WHO Advisory Committee on Health Research (2006) Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 1. Guidelines for guidelines. Health Res Policy Syst 4: 13. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hill S, Pang T (2007) Leading by example: a culture change at WHO. Lancet 369(9576): 1842–1844. - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources