Article

How "should" we write guideline recommendations? Interpretation of deontic terminology in clinical practice guidelines: survey of the health services community

Yale Center for Medical Informatics, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut 06511, USA.
Quality and Safety in Health Care (Impact Factor: 2.16). 12/2010; 19(6):509-13. DOI: 10.1136/qshc.2009.032565
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To describe the level of obligation conveyed by deontic terms (words such as "should", "may", "must" and "is indicated") commonly found in clinical practice guidelines.
Cross-sectional electronic survey.
A clinical scenario was developed by the researchers, and recommendations containing 12 deontic terms and phrases were presented to the participants.
All 1332 registrants of the 2008 annual conference of the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
Participants indicated the level of obligation they believed guideline authors intended by using a slider mechanism ranging from "No obligation" (leftmost position recorded as 0) to "Full obligation" (rightmost position recorded as 100.)
445/1332 registrants (36%) submitted the on-line survey; 254/445 (57%) reported that they have experience in developing clinical practice guidelines; 133/445 (30%) indicated that they provide healthcare. "Must" conveyed the highest level of obligation (median = 100) and least amount of variability (interquartile range = 5.) "May" (median = 37) and "may consider" (median = 33) conveyed the lowest levels of obligation. All other terms conveyed intermediate levels of obligation characterised by wide and overlapping interquartile ranges.
Members of the health services community believe guideline authors intend variable levels of obligation when using different deontic terms within practice recommendations. Ranking of a subset of terms by intended level of obligation is possible. Matching deontic terminology to the intended recommendation strength can help standardise the use of deontic terminology by guideline developers.

0 Followers
 · 
66 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: With these comments on the paper "Attitude of Physicians Towards Automatic Alerting in Computerized Physician Order Entry Systems", written by Martin Jung and co-authors, with Dr. Elske Ammenwerth as senior author [1], the journal wants to stimulate a broad discussion on computerized physician order entry systems. An international group of experts have been invited by the editor of Methods to comment on this paper. Each of the invited commentaries forms one section of this paper.
    Methods of Information in Medicine 03/2013; 52(2):109-127. · 1.08 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Doctors are more likely to implement guidelines in their everyday practice if the recommendations contained in them are understandable. So far, there has been little standardization in the wording of guideline recommendations. It would be important to know how certain terms are understood by guideline users. In this study, doctors were asked in a survey about what they considered to be the level of obligation carried by various formulations that are commonly used in guidelines to recommend particular courses of action. An online survey of physicians (mostly dermatologists) was carried out in which they were asked to rate, on a visual analog scale, what they perceived to be the level of obligation of various common formulations for guideline recommendations. The terms "muss" (must) and "darf nicht" (must not) were interpreted as being maximally binding. The two closely related German words "soll" (shall) and "sollte" (should) were considered highly binding, as were negative formulations such as "wird nicht empfohlen" (is not recommended). The perceived level of obligation of "soll" did not differ from that of "sollte" to any detectable extent, nor was there any detectable distinction between the various negative formulations studied. Formulations with the words "wird empfohlen" (is recommended), "kann empfohlen werden" (can be recommended), or other "kann" (can) expressions were considered to be only mildly or moderately binding. In general, there was marked variation in the perceived level of obligation of formulations located in the low and middle ranges. These findings suggest that guideline users do not necessarily perceive recommendation strengths as the guideline authors intended. It might be better if positive recommendations came in only two different strengths, while a single recommendation strength might suffice for negative ones. Further studies should shed more light on this question.
    Deutsches Ärzteblatt International 10/2013; 110(40):663-8. DOI:10.3238/arztebl.2013.0663 · 3.61 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article describes the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to classifying the direction and strength of recommendations. The strength of a recommendation, separated into strong and weak, is defined as the extent to which one can be confident that the desirable effects of an intervention outweigh its undesirable effects. Alternative terms for a weak recommendation include conditional, discretionary, or qualified. The strength of a recommendation has specific implications for patients, the public, clinicians, and policy makers. Occasionally, guideline developers may choose to make "only-in-research" recommendations. Although panels may choose not to make recommendations, this choice leaves those looking for answers from guidelines without the guidance they are seeking. GRADE therefore encourages panels to, wherever possible, offer recommendations.
    Journal of clinical epidemiology 01/2013; 66(7). DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.03.013 · 5.48 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
10 Downloads
Available from
Jun 1, 2014