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
. 2018 Jul 13;16(1):62.
doi: 10.1186/s12961-018-0329-6.

Development of rapid guidelines: 2. A qualitative study with WHO guideline developers

Affiliations

Development of rapid guidelines: 2. A qualitative study with WHO guideline developers

Ivan D Florez et al. Health Res Policy Syst. .

Abstract

Background: Situations such as public health emergencies and outbreaks necessitate the development and publication of high-quality recommendations within a condensed timeframe. For example, WHO has produced examples of and guidance for the development of rapid guidelines (RGs). However, more information is needed to understand the experiences and perceptions of guideline developers. This is the second of a series of three articles addressing methodological issues around RGs. This study describes the perceptions and experiences of guideline developers at WHO about RGs.

Methods: We conducted interviews consisting of open- and closed-ended questions with guideline developers at WHO. Our analysis described the definition and rationale of RGs, the differences from regular guidelines with regard to timelines from topic definition until publication, barriers to identifying the evidence and the lack of a standard methodology to develop RGs.

Results: We interviewed 10 participants, the majority of whom were comfortable with the current WHO definition of RGs. Most stated that the rationale for developing RGs should be in response to new evidence about efficacy, cost-effectiveness or safety. Respondents differed with regards to the amount of time RGs should take. While the majority of participants agreed that guidelines should be based on a systematic review, this step in the process was considered the most time and resource intensive. Challenges for developing RGs included limited personnel and financial resources as well as the lack of evidence. Facilitators, in turn, that may improve RG development include additional financial and personnel resources as well as the use of virtual meetings.

Conclusions: While our study suggests a strong need and rationale for the development of RGs, standardisation of timelines and guidance on panel composition, peer-review process, conduct of meetings and sources of permissible evidence require further research.

Keywords: Clinical guidelines; Emergencies; Guideline; Guideline development; Methodology; Rapid reviews.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

    1. ​Institute of Medicine. Clinical Practice Guidelines we Can Trust. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2011.
    1. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. SIGN 50: A Guideline Developers’ Handbook. Edinburgh: Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network; 2008.
    1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence N . The Guidelines Manual. London: NICE; 2012. - PubMed
    1. World Health Organization . WHO Handbook for Guideline Development. Geneva: WHO; 2014.
    1. Oxman AD, Fretheim A, Schünemann HJ. Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: introduction. Health Res Policy Syst. 2006;4(1):1. doi: 10.1186/1478-4505-4-1. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources