Cargando…
Health system guidance appraisal—concept evaluation and usability testing
BACKGROUND: Health system guidance (HSG) provides recommendations aimed to address health system challenges. However, there is a paucity of methods to direct, appraise, and report HSG. Earlier research identified 30 candidate criteria (concepts) that can be used to evaluate the quality of HSG and gu...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4700602/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26727892 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0365-3 |
_version_ | 1782408345549799424 |
---|---|
author | Ako-Arrey, Denis E. Brouwers, Melissa C. Lavis, John N. Giacomini, Mita K. |
author_facet | Ako-Arrey, Denis E. Brouwers, Melissa C. Lavis, John N. Giacomini, Mita K. |
author_sort | Ako-Arrey, Denis E. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Health system guidance (HSG) provides recommendations aimed to address health system challenges. However, there is a paucity of methods to direct, appraise, and report HSG. Earlier research identified 30 candidate criteria (concepts) that can be used to evaluate the quality of HSG and guide development and reporting requirements. The objective of this paper was to describe two studies aimed at evaluating the importance of these 30 criteria, design a draft HSG appraisal tool, and test its usability. METHODS: This study involved a two-step survey process. In step 1, respondents rated the 30 concepts for appropriateness to, relevance to, and priority for health system decisions and HSG. This led to a draft tool. In step 2, respondents reviewed HSG documents, appraised them using the tool, and answered a series of questions. Descriptive analyses were computed. RESULTS: Fifty participants were invited in step 1, and we had a response rate of 82 %. The mean response rates for each concept within each survey question were universally favorable. There was also an overall agreement about the need for a high-quality tool to systematically direct the development, appraisal, and reporting of HSG. Qualitative feedback and a consensus process by the team led to refinements to some of the concepts and the creation of a beta (draft) version of the HSG tool. In step 2, 35 participants were invited and we had a response rate of 74 %. Exploratory analyses showed that the quality of the HSGs reviewed varied as a function of the HSG item and the specific document assessed. A favorable consensus was reached with participants agreeing that the HSG items were easy to understand and easy to apply. Moreover, the overall agreement was high for the usability of the tool to systematically direct the development (85 %), appraisal (92 %), and reporting (81 %) of HSG. From this process, version 1.0 of the HSG appraisal tool was generated complete with 32 items (and their descriptions) and 4 domains. CONCLUSIONS: The final tool, named the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation for Health Systems (AGREE-HS) (version 1), defines expectations of HSG and facilitates informed decisions among policymakers on health system delivery, financial, and governance arrangements. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0365-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4700602 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-47006022016-01-06 Health system guidance appraisal—concept evaluation and usability testing Ako-Arrey, Denis E. Brouwers, Melissa C. Lavis, John N. Giacomini, Mita K. Implement Sci Research BACKGROUND: Health system guidance (HSG) provides recommendations aimed to address health system challenges. However, there is a paucity of methods to direct, appraise, and report HSG. Earlier research identified 30 candidate criteria (concepts) that can be used to evaluate the quality of HSG and guide development and reporting requirements. The objective of this paper was to describe two studies aimed at evaluating the importance of these 30 criteria, design a draft HSG appraisal tool, and test its usability. METHODS: This study involved a two-step survey process. In step 1, respondents rated the 30 concepts for appropriateness to, relevance to, and priority for health system decisions and HSG. This led to a draft tool. In step 2, respondents reviewed HSG documents, appraised them using the tool, and answered a series of questions. Descriptive analyses were computed. RESULTS: Fifty participants were invited in step 1, and we had a response rate of 82 %. The mean response rates for each concept within each survey question were universally favorable. There was also an overall agreement about the need for a high-quality tool to systematically direct the development, appraisal, and reporting of HSG. Qualitative feedback and a consensus process by the team led to refinements to some of the concepts and the creation of a beta (draft) version of the HSG tool. In step 2, 35 participants were invited and we had a response rate of 74 %. Exploratory analyses showed that the quality of the HSGs reviewed varied as a function of the HSG item and the specific document assessed. A favorable consensus was reached with participants agreeing that the HSG items were easy to understand and easy to apply. Moreover, the overall agreement was high for the usability of the tool to systematically direct the development (85 %), appraisal (92 %), and reporting (81 %) of HSG. From this process, version 1.0 of the HSG appraisal tool was generated complete with 32 items (and their descriptions) and 4 domains. CONCLUSIONS: The final tool, named the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation for Health Systems (AGREE-HS) (version 1), defines expectations of HSG and facilitates informed decisions among policymakers on health system delivery, financial, and governance arrangements. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0365-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2016-01-05 /pmc/articles/PMC4700602/ /pubmed/26727892 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0365-3 Text en © Ako-Arrey et al. 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Ako-Arrey, Denis E. Brouwers, Melissa C. Lavis, John N. Giacomini, Mita K. Health system guidance appraisal—concept evaluation and usability testing |
title | Health system guidance appraisal—concept evaluation and usability testing |
title_full | Health system guidance appraisal—concept evaluation and usability testing |
title_fullStr | Health system guidance appraisal—concept evaluation and usability testing |
title_full_unstemmed | Health system guidance appraisal—concept evaluation and usability testing |
title_short | Health system guidance appraisal—concept evaluation and usability testing |
title_sort | health system guidance appraisal—concept evaluation and usability testing |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4700602/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26727892 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0365-3 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT akoarreydenise healthsystemguidanceappraisalconceptevaluationandusabilitytesting AT brouwersmelissac healthsystemguidanceappraisalconceptevaluationandusabilitytesting AT lavisjohnn healthsystemguidanceappraisalconceptevaluationandusabilitytesting AT giacominimitak healthsystemguidanceappraisalconceptevaluationandusabilitytesting AT healthsystemguidanceappraisalconceptevaluationandusabilitytesting |