Characteristics of Implementability of Emergency Health Systems Guidance Based on AGREE-HS
10.13422/j.cnki.syfjx.20250593
- VernacularTitle:基于AGREE-HS评价的应急卫生系统指南可实施性特点
- Author:
Fangqi LIU
1
;
Mengyu LIU
2
;
Danping ZHENG
2
;
An LI
2
;
Xue CHEN
2
;
Gezhi ZHANG
2
;
Dongfeng WEI
2
;
Wei YANG
2
;
Weixuan BAI
2
;
Yong LI
1
Author Information
1. School of Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine，Gansu University of Chinese Medicine， Lanzhou 730000，China
2. Institute of Basic Research in Clinical 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;
implementability
- From:
Chinese Journal of Experimental Traditional Medical Formulae
2024;30(24):250-256
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Guidance implementation acts as a bridge between theory and practice，enabling the rapid expansion of their impact and application. This study demonstratively evaluated emergency health systems guidance documents （HSG），represented by the COVID-19 emergency HSG，based on the item implementability of the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation-Health Systems （AGREE-HS），aiming to explore the characteristics of implementability in emergency HSG. The evaluation results indicated that the COVID-19 emergency HSG had a low mean score in implementability，which ranked just above the item participants. Criterion 2 （costs and resource considerations for implementing the recommendations） received the highest mean score of 4.29，while criterion 9 （systematic evaluation of implementation） received the lowest mean score of 1.34. The emergency HSG formulated by the World Health Organization（WHO） and those formulated by various countries showed no difference （P=0.114） in criterion 1 （barriers and facilitators to implementation） but had differences （P<0.05） regarding the average item scores and the scores of the remaining criteria. The WHO standard HSG had high overall scores and had differences （P<0.05） in both the mean item scores and the scores of the nine criteria when compared with the emergency HSG. The global/national HSG showed differences in scores of criterion 1 （barriers and facilitators to implementation） compared with the both clinically relevant HSG and material support HSG （P<0.05）. Emergency HSG prioritized considerations of implementation costs，resources，and flexibility in terms of implementability，while de-emphasizing aspects such as stakeholder opinions，dissemination strategies，and evaluation of HSG. This may be attributed to the context in which emergency HSG are formulated，given the inherent flexibility and variability of emergency health events. The developers should comprehensively consider the needs and characteristics related to the implementability of emergency HSG during the formulation process.
