Background. A 2017 situational analysis assessing Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) development in the Philippines revealed CPGs of inconsistent quality. In response, the Department of Health (DOH)-Philippine Health Insurance Corporation Manual for CPG Development was developed to outline the standardized steps of the CPG development process. To implement this, technically qualified institutions and individuals should be commissioned.

Objective. To identify qualified institutions and individuals and map out their technical skills and potential for capacit building in CPG development

Methods. Mixed methods were used in this cross-sectional study. A snowballing method identified specific institutions and individuals. Self-administered surveys and key informant interviews were conducted to determine competence, strengths, and gaps in the development of CPGs.

Results. A total of 74 individuals from 45 institutions with competencies in CPG development were identified. Of the 45 institutions, 72% were non-clinical, with roughly half working on formal research. Of the 74 individuals, 96% possessed relevant knowledge and skills and 85% already provided training on CPG development topics. Around half of the respondents have been part of a CPG development task force. Only about half were able to incorporate social concepts of equity, and only one-third had experience in managing conflicts of interest.

Conclusion. Qualified institutions and individuals identified in this capacity mapping can be tapped in future CPG development in the country. Incorporation of social concepts and management of conflicts of interest still need to be ensured.

Practice Guideline ; Capacity Building

Background. The use of face shield in addition to face mask is thought to reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by blocking respiratory droplets and by preventing one from touching facial orifices.

Objective. To determine the effectiveness of face mask with face shield, compared to face mask alone, in reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

Methods. We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, as well as trial registers, preprint sites and COVID-19 living evidence sites as of 30 September 2021. We included studies that used face shield with face mask versus face mask alone to prevent COVID-19. We screened studies, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias and certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Review Manager 5.4 was used to estimate pooled effects.

Results. There is no available direct evidence for face shield plus face mask versus face mask alone in the general public. Five (5) observational studies with very low certainty of evidence due to serious risk of bias and indirectness were included. Participants in all the studies were health care workers (HCWs) who used the face shield with their standard personal protective equipment (PPE). Four (4) of the studies were in the hospital setting (three case control studies, one pre- and post-surveillance study); one was done in the community (one pre- and post-surveillance study) in which HCWs visited the residence of the contacts of SARS-CoV-2 positive patients. The case control studies done in the hospital setting showed a trend toward benefit with the use of face shield or goggle but this was inconclusive (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.68-1.08) while the pre- and post-surveillance study showed significant benefit when face shield (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.22-0.37) use became a requirement for HCWs upon hospital entry. In the study done in the community setting, significant protection for HCWs was noted with the use of face shield (OR 0.04, 95% CI 0.00-0.69) but the results were limited by serious risk of bias and imprecision.

Conclusion. In the hospital setting, there was a lower likelihood of COVID-19 infection in HCWs who used a face shield or goggles on top of their PPE. For the general public in the community, there is presently no study on the use of face shield in addition to the face mask to prevent COVID-19 infection.

Personal Protective Equipment ; COVID-19 ; Eye Protective Devices