Characteristics of Developing Methods for Emergency Health Systems Guidance Based on AGREE-HS
10.13422/j.cnki.syfjx.20240299
- VernacularTitle:基于AGREE-HS评价的应急卫生系统指南制定方法特点
- Author:
Danping ZHENG
1
;
Wei YANG
1
;
Dongfeng WEI
1
;
Nannan SHI
1
;
Lin TONG
2
;
An LI
1
;
Gezhi ZHANG
1
;
Xue CHEN
1
;
Fangqi LIU
3
;
Weixuan BAI
1
;
Xinghua XIANG
1
;
Mengyu LIU
1
;
Huamin ZHANG
4
Author Information
1. Institute of Basic Research in Clinical Medicine，China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences， Beijing 100700，China
2. Institute of Information on Traditional Chinese Medicine，China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences，Beijing 100700，China
3. School of Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine，Gansu University of Chinese Medicine， Lanzhou 730000，China
4. Institute of Basic Theory for Chinese Medicine，China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences， Beijing 100700，China
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
emergency health systems guidance;
Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation- Health Systems （AGREE-HS）;
assessment;
methods
- From:
Chinese Journal of Experimental Traditional Medical Formulae
2024;30(22):149-156
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
The scientific rigor and efficacy of methodologies employed in drafting emergency health systems guidance documents （HSGs） are paramount in guaranteeing the quality， reliability， and applicability of HSGs. According to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation- Health Systems （AGREE-HS）， we demonstratively assessed both global coronavirus disease-2019 （COVID-19） emergency HSGs and World Health Organization （WHO） standard HSGs to uncover the core attributes of methods employed in the development of emergency HSGs. Our evaluation findings revealed that across the five assessment items of AGREE-HS， methods in the 34 emergency HSGs evaluated ranked third， trailing behind topic and recommendations. Notably， criterion 2 （the best available and most contextually relevant evidence is considered） received the highest score， whereas criterion 5 （evidence of cost and cost-effectiveness of the potential options is described） scored the lowest. Compared with the WHO standard HSGs， the COVID-19 emergency HSGs exhibited low scores in methods （P<0.05）， which was reflected in nine criteria （P<0.05）， especially in criteria 1 （systematic and transparent methods are used to identify and review the evidence） and 9 （systematic and transparent methods are used to agree upon the final recommendations）. Among the COVID-19 emergency HSGs， that developed by the WHO achieved higher scores in eight out of all nine criteria， excluding criterion 8 （P<0.05）. The clinically relevant emergency HSGs had higher scores in the criteria 3 （the evidence base is current） and 8 （the rationale behind the recommendations is clear） than other types of emergency HSGs. Collectively， the methodology for developing emergency HSGs， represented by the COVID-19 emergency HSG， underscores evidence orientation and integrates expert consensus. It is characterized by adaptable evidence synthesis strategies， streamlined evidence review protocols， and contextual relevance， all of which are influenced by external， internal， and implementation-specific factors.
