4.6 Article

GRADE equity guidelines 4: considering health equity in GRADE guideline development: evidence to decision process

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 90, 期 -, 页码 84-91

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.08.001

关键词

Health equity; Disadvantaged; Underserved; Special populations; Evidence to decision process; GRADE guidelines

资金

  1. Chief Scientist Office [SPHSU13, SPHSU15, SCAF/15/02] Funding Source: researchfish
  2. Medical Research Council [MC_UU_12017/13, MC_UU_12017/15] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. MRC [MC_UU_12017/15, MC_UU_12017/13] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: The aim of this paper is to provide detailed guidance on how to incorporate health equity within the GRADE (Grading Recommendations Assessment and Development Evidence) evidence to decision process. Study Design and Setting: We developed this guidance based on the GRADE evidence to decision framework, iteratively reviewing and modifying draft documents, in person discussion of project group members and input from other GRADE members. Results: Considering the impact on health equity may be required, both in general guidelines and guidelines that focus on disadvantaged populations. We suggest two approaches to incorporate equity considerations: (1) assessing the potential impact of interventions on equity and (2) incorporating equity considerations when judging or weighing each of the evidence to decision criteria. We provide guidance and include illustrative examples. Conclusion: Guideline panels should consider the impact of recommendations on health equity with attention to remote and underserviced settings and disadvantaged populations. Guideline panels may wish to incorporate equity judgments across the evidence to decision framework. This is the fourth and final paper in a series about considering equity in the GRADE guideline development process. This series is coming from the GRADE equity subgroup. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据