A narrative review of global and national physical activity and sedentary behaviour guidelines development processes - The GUidelines Standards (GUS) project.

Development Guidelines Physical activity Public health Review Sedentary behaviour

Journal

Preventive medicine
ISSN: 1096-0260
Titre abrégé: Prev Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0322116

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
16 Apr 2024
Historique:
received: 29 02 2024
revised: 04 04 2024
accepted: 15 04 2024
medline: 19 4 2024
pubmed: 19 4 2024
entrez: 18 4 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Clinical and public health guidelines serve to direct clinical practice and policy, based on the best available evidence. The World Health Organization (WHO) and national health bodies of many countries have released physical activity and sedentary behaviour guidelines. Despite significant overlap in the body of evidence reviewed, the guidelines differ across jurisdictions. This study aimed to review the processes used to develop global and national physical activity and sedentary behaviour guidelines and examine the extent to which they conform with a recommended methodological standard for the development of guidelines. We extracted data on nine sets of guidelines from seven jurisdictions (WHO, Australia, Canada, Japan, the Netherlands, United Kingdom, and United States). We rated each set of guidelines as high, medium, or low quality on criteria related to the rigour of the development process. We observed variation in the quality of guidelines development processes across jurisdictions and across different criteria. Guidelines received the strongest overall ratings for criteria on clearly describing the evidence selected and stating an explicit link between the recommendations and the supporting evidence. Guidelines received the weakest overall ratings for criteria related to clearly describing the methods used to formulate the recommendations and reporting external review by experts prior to publication. Evaluated against the selected criteria, the strongest processes were undertaken by the WHO and Canada. Reaching agreement on acceptable guideline development processes, as well as the inclusion and appraisal procedures of different types of evidence, would help to strengthen and align future guidelines.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Clinical and public health guidelines serve to direct clinical practice and policy, based on the best available evidence. The World Health Organization (WHO) and national health bodies of many countries have released physical activity and sedentary behaviour guidelines. Despite significant overlap in the body of evidence reviewed, the guidelines differ across jurisdictions. This study aimed to review the processes used to develop global and national physical activity and sedentary behaviour guidelines and examine the extent to which they conform with a recommended methodological standard for the development of guidelines.
METHODS METHODS
We extracted data on nine sets of guidelines from seven jurisdictions (WHO, Australia, Canada, Japan, the Netherlands, United Kingdom, and United States). We rated each set of guidelines as high, medium, or low quality on criteria related to the rigour of the development process.
RESULTS RESULTS
We observed variation in the quality of guidelines development processes across jurisdictions and across different criteria. Guidelines received the strongest overall ratings for criteria on clearly describing the evidence selected and stating an explicit link between the recommendations and the supporting evidence. Guidelines received the weakest overall ratings for criteria related to clearly describing the methods used to formulate the recommendations and reporting external review by experts prior to publication. Evaluated against the selected criteria, the strongest processes were undertaken by the WHO and Canada.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Reaching agreement on acceptable guideline development processes, as well as the inclusion and appraisal procedures of different types of evidence, would help to strengthen and align future guidelines.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38636671
pii: S0091-7435(24)00114-2
doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2024.107959
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

107959

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Auteurs

Karen Milton (K)

Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, UK. Electronic address: k.milton@uea.ac.uk.

Coral L Hanson (CL)

School of Health and Social Care, Edinburgh Napier University, UK.

Alice Pearsons (A)

School of Health and Social Care, Edinburgh Napier University, UK.

Roger Chou (R)

Departments of Medicine, and Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health and Science University, USA.

Emmanuel Stamatakis (E)

Mackenzie Wearables Research Hub, Charles Perkins Centre, University of Sydney, Australia; School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Australia.

Classifications MeSH