World Health Organization Guideline Development: An Evaluation

David Sinclair, Rachel Isba, Tamara Kredo, Babalwa Zani, Helen Smith and Paul Garner

PLOS ONE, 2013, vol. 8, issue 5, 1-5

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.

Date: 2013
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0063715 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 63715&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0063715

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0063715

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone (plosone@plos.org).