Table 3:

Summary of proposed best practices within each of the 4 stages of guideline development

Stage of guideline developmentProposed best practices summaryAdvantages and disadvantagesTools identified
1. Guideline planning
a) Priority setting
  • Prioritize key questions that are of the greatest concern and interest to disadvantaged groups (41), (50)

  • PROGRESS-Plus (60) may help developers systematically consider and prioritize populations for whom the health care topic is particularly relevant (27), (28), (41), (56)

  • Consider dedicating a part of or a whole guideline to the care of disadvantaged groups (41)

  • Examine any health issue through the lens of equity, human rights, gender and the influence of social determinants if adapting or adopting an existing guideline (28), (46)

  • Consider other variables that might constitute potential barriers to the desired outcomes, such as legal and policy frameworks that could marginalize or exclude certain populations (46)

Practice: Examine any health issue through the lens of equity, human rights, gender and the influence of social determinants
Advantages: (46)
  • May help to better understand the needs and gaps to be addressed and may lead to interventions that are more effective in the longer term and that will evoke a feeling of “ownership” in the targeted group or community

  • PROGRESS-Plus (60)

  • INCLEN equity lens (18)

b) Identifying target audience and topic selection
  • Disadvantaged groups should be considered when identifying the target audience of a proposed guideline (55)

  • Planned guidelines should not only focus on the average level of health, but how health is distributed within populations and across groups (46)

  • Representatives of disadvantaged groups may help to identify target audiences for guidelines (41)

None identifiedNone identified
c) Guideline group membership
  • Include representatives of disadvantaged population groups in the guideline group (20), (41), (44), (49), (50)

  • Include representatives throughout the entire guideline development process, from selecting topics to implementation (44)

  • Listen to challenges experienced by guideline members from disadvantaged population groups and create and implement an action plan to eliminate identified challenges (49)

  • Consider creating an independent subgroup for disadvantaged populations (50)

  • Promote transparency and objective criteria for the guideline group selection process (49), (59)

  • Recruit and select individuals who understand how to take health equity, human rights, gender and social determinants into account in efforts to promote better health (41), (46)

  • Ensure that the chair of the voting panel is familiar with health equity (41)

  • Include EDI considerations in leadership and chair appointments (49), (59)

  • Give explicit attention to conflicts of interest that can lead to a weakened stance on equity, human rights, gender and social determinants in the final guideline (46)

Practice: Include representatives of disadvantaged population groups in the guideline group
Advantages: (50)
  • May lend a clear voice to discussions

  • Not resource intensive

  • Representatives from professional organizations may help bring the weight of their organizations with them

Disadvantages: (50)
  • One individual may feel pressure to represent the views of the population

  • A single voice may not be heard by the group

  • A health professional from a disadvantaged population may have extra demands, making it difficult for them to commit the time necessary for guideline development

  • Only hearing 1 individual perspective

Practice: Create an independent subgroup
Advantages: (24)
  • Safe and open environment to discuss culturally specific needs related to the guideline

  • May ensure more equitable participation

  • Outcomes may be more relevant to the community that they represent

Disadvantages: (50)
  • Resource intensive

  • No guarantee that subgroup will lead to any additional recommendations

  • A subgroup separate from the rest of the guideline team may appear exclusionary

None identified
d) Stakeholder involvement
  • Create a plan to recruit, involve and support representatives of disadvantaged populations (15), (20), (28), (51)

  • Consult experts in engaging representatives and stakeholders (41)

  • Train stakeholders in the guideline content and development process (41)

  • Use a structured format to facilitate active participation and feedback (41)

  • Conduct systematic reviews of qualitative studies, conduct electronic surveys, or conduct in-person semistructured interviews to collect guideline perspectives from underserved or disadvantaged populations (45)

  • Use existing tools (e.g., GRADE-FACE) to create an interview guide with language appropriate to specific disadvantaged populations (45)

  • Supply a feedback form when writing to stakeholders (51)

Practice: Conduct in-person semistructured interviews to collect guideline perspectives from underserved or disadvantaged populations (45)
Advantages:
  • In-person interviews may be better suited to collect perspectives from some underserved populations than electronic surveys

Practice: Consult disadvantaged populations or stakeholders
Advantages:
  • May reveal previously unknown priorities for certain subgroups (45)

Disadvantages:
  • Consultation may become tokenistic if stakeholders are unable to fully participate (41)

  • Additional resources, planning and effort may be required (15), (28)

Practice: Use the GRADE-FACE approach to collect stakeholder feedback (45)
Advantages:
  • Provides a transparent and evidence- informed strategy that is supported by validity and reliability measures, user reported usability, and rating scales

  • GRADE-FACE (45), (58)

e) Scoping questions
  • Conduct a literature review to inform the scope of the guideline and question development (50), (51), (56)

  • Create a report combining results of formal searches and stakeholder discussions (50)

  • Develop a logic model to assess relations between interventions, outcomes, effect modifiers and the social determinants of health (56)

  • Evaluate health equity at each stage of the PICO framework (41)

  • Consider population subgroups who are likely to be particularly affected by changes in health care related to the guideline topic (28), (41), (51)

  • Create a key question to seek interventions that may reduce disparities in health outcomes (50), (56)

  • Include health equity as an outcome in the PICO questions, analytic framework and SoF table (42)

  • Address human rights in questions and other issues related to laws, policies, standards, protocols and guidelines (46)

Practice: Conduct a literature review
Advantages:
  • Provides an opportunity to discuss equity related actions regarding previous gaps in evidence (50)

Disadvantages:
  • Potential difficulty finding data relevant to disadvantaged populations/health equity (50)

Practice: Include heath equity as an outcome in the PICO questions, analytic framework and SoF table
Disadvantages:
  • May need to exclude other important patient outcomes, as the recommended number of outcomes in a GRADE table is seven (42)

  • Kunst and Mackenbach inequality evaluation (61)

  • Oxman prompts to consider equity in key questions (16)

f) Considering the importance of outcomes and interventions, values, preferences and utilities
  • Involve representatives of disadvantaged populations to rate interventions and outcomes (28), (41), (42)

  • Search relevant databases for outcomes or interventions rated important by disadvantaged populations (41)

Practice: Involve representatives to rate interventions and outcomes Disadvantages:
  • It may be challenging to balance the benefits and harms for recommendations when care provider values differ from stakeholder values (28)

  • Databases for information on patient views: UK DUETs and COMET (41)

2. Evidence review
a) Searching for relevant evidence
  • Include non-English studies in the search strategy (41)

  • Use special filters for guideline questions related to specific geographic locations (e.g., LMIC) (41)

  • Consider including qualitative and observational studies (28), (50)

  • Consider evidence from fields outside of health (e.g., social science, economics) (41)

None identified
  • NHMRC Guidelines for Guidelines Handbook (62)

  • Informit Indigenous Collection (63)

  • Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Bibliography (64)

  • The Cochrane Health Equity Checklist for Systematic Reviews (65)

b) Summarizing the evidence
  • Include health equity within the PICO question as an outcome in the SoF table (42)

  • Present the baseline risks and risk differences for each relevant population group with supporting evidence in a SoF table (17)

  • Assess differences in the magnitude of effect in relative terms between disadvantaged and more advantaged populations (42)

  • Assess subgroup effects and the credibility of the apparent effect (42)

  • Lack of evidence surrounding a critical health equity outcome should not be a reason to omit from the SoF table (41)

Practice: Include health equity as an outcome in the SoF table
Advantages:
  • Easier for guideline panels to find the information on health equity during the EtD process (42)

Disadvantages:
  • May need to exclude other important patient outcomes, as the recommended number of outcomes in a GRADE table is seven (42)

  • Checklist for assessing credibility of subgroup analyses (66)

  • PRISMA-Equity extension (67)

c) Quality appraisal
  • Consider any potential sources of bias that may relate to disadvantaged groups because the quality appraisal of RCTs tend to be generalized across different population groups (50)

  • Assess indirectness of evidence using the GRADE approach to disadvantaged groups and/or settings (42), (43), (68)

  • Provide higher quality ratings for outcomes in the equity analysis under certain conditions, using the GRADE approach (56)

Practice: Consider indirectness when evaluating evidence for disadvantaged groups using the GRADE approach
Disadvantages:
  • There may be limitations in the evidence base making it difficult to assess indirectness and rate the overall certainty of evidence (41), (42)

  • The Cochrane Health Equity Checklist for Systematic Reviews (65)

3. Guideline development
a) Formulating recommendations
  • Balance the harms and benefits of interventions for disadvantaged populations (27), (43)

  • Formulate equitable recommendations by, for example, considering barriers and facilitators of interventions (50) (52), (55)

  • Develop an “equity-strategy” that aims to overcome identified barriers for disadvantaged populations (44)

  • Consider the 6 criteria of the WHO-INTEGRATE framework that are relevant to health decision-making and the formulation of recommendations: balance of health benefits and harms, human rights and sociocultural acceptability, health equity, equality and nondiscrimination, societal implications, financial and economic considerations, and feasibility and health system considerations (29)

  • Consider using an equity EtD framework when formulating recommendations (54)

Practice: Develop an equity strategy to overcome identified barriers
Disadvantages:
  • There may not be one approach to mitigate harms on health equity due to the heterogeneity of disadvantaged populations (43)

Practice: Consider the 6 criteria of the WHO-INTEGRATE framework
Advantages:
  • A comprehensive EtD framework that key informants found value in adding the criterion assessing societal implications, as well as human rights and sociocultural acceptability, health equity, equality and nondiscrimination

Disadvantages:
  • Key informants expressed concerns with the workload that the use of the framework might add to the guideline development process

  • Health Equity Assessment Tool (50)

  • WHO-INTEGRATE framework (29)

b) Wording of recommendations
  • Recommendations should be worded as clear and actionable statements with respect to equity, human rights, gender and social determinants (41), (46)

  • Be specific when defining disadvantaged populations (41)

  • Use language carefully so as to not further stigmatize disadvantaged populations (44)

None identifiedNone identified
c) Assessing equity within guidelines
  • To determine how well guidelines address equity, use the INCLEN equity lens (18)

  • Use the EEFA framework when creating and evaluating equity in vaccine guidelines (69)

  • Evaluation and monitoring of the impact of recommendations that potentially affect inequities are also critically important and should be articulated in the guideline document (46)

Practice: Use the INCLEN equity lens to assess equity in guidelines
Advantages:
  • Transparent and reproducible evaluation (20)

  • Reflects the care provider perspective (52)

  • Broadly applicable to many guidelines (52)

  • Can be used during development or retrospectively (52)

Disadvantages:
  • Focuses on biomedical considerations and may miss population-level inequities related to broader sociocultural factors (52)

Practice: Use the EEFA framework when creating and evaluating equity in vaccine guidelines
Advantages:
  • Ensures that recommendations are appropriate and comprehensive

  • Will help committees to balance the benefits and harms of evidence when creating recommendations

  • INCLEN equity lens (18)

  • EEFA Framework (69)

d) Review and reporting
  • Develop methods to ensure the rigorous and systematic reporting of evidence related to equity-based recommendations (2)

None identifiedNone identified
4. Dissemination
a) Monitoring implementation and evaluating use
  • Monitor the guideline impact and uptake in subgroups (27), (41), (44), (56)

  • Decide on implementation strategies and indicators before guideline publication (56)

  • Use indicators that are stratified by equity factors to monitor disparities (44) or measure implementation within subgroups (41)

  • Obtain surveillance data to monitor relevant health outcomes or indicators (41)

  • Consult relevant community advisory committees and stakeholders for disadvantaged populations to obtain implementation feedback (47), (52)

None identified
b) Updating
  • Consider the impact of the guideline recommendations on disadvantaged populations to help inform decisions on guideline revisions (51)

None identifiedNone identified
  • Note: COMET = Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials; DUET = Database of Uncertainties about the Effects of Treatments; EEFA = Ethics, Equity, Feasibility, Acceptability; EtD = Evidence to Decision; GRADE-FACE = Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation–Feasibility, Acceptability, Cost, and Equity Survey; INCLEN = International Clinical Epidemiology Network; INTEGRATE = Integrate Evidence; LMIC = low- and middle-income countries; NH MRC = National Health and Medical Research Council; PICO = Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes; PROGRESS = Place of residence, Race/ethnicity/culture/language, Occupation, Gender/sex, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status, and Social capital; SoF = summary of findings; WHO = World Health Organization.