An Independent AGREE Evaluation of the Occupational Medicine Practice Guidelines

Cates, Jeffrey R.; Young, David N.; Bowerman, Daniel S.; Porter, Robert

doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2005.06.012

Cited by 54 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Both internal consistency and interrater reliability are well in line with the original validation study by the AGREE Collaboration 8) . This is in agreement with other recent studies that have tested AGREE in medical or paramedical fields of health care where the original instrument was not developed [24][25][26] . It should be kept in mind that the instrument evaluates process aspects of the quality of a guideline and not the content but also measures how well the guideline development process is reported.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Evidence-Based Practice Guidelines in OHS: Are They Agree-Able?

Hulshof

Hoenen²

2007

Ind Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the acceptance, validity, reliability and feasibility of the AGREE (Appraisal of Guidelines and REsearch and Evaluation) instrument to assess the quality of evidence-based practice guidelines for occupational physicians. In total, 6 practice guidelines of the Netherlands Society of Occupational Medicine (NVAB) were appraised by 20 occupational health professionals and experts in guideline development or implementation. Although appraisers often disagreed on individual item scores, the internal consistency and interrater reliability for most domains was sufficient. The AGREE criteria were in general considered relevant and no major suggestions for additional items for use in the context of occupational health were brought up. The domain scores for the individual guidelines show a wide variety: 'applicability' had on average the lowest mean score (53%) while 'scope and purpose' had the highest one (87%). Low scores indicate where improvements are possible and necessary, e.g. by providing more information about the development. Key experts in occupational health report that AGREE is a relevant and easy to use instrument to evaluate quality aspects and the included criteria provide a good framework to develop or update evidence-based practice guidelines in the field of occupational health.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Evidence-Based Practice Guidelines in OHS: Are They Agree-Able?

Hulshof

Hoenen²

2007

Ind Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is in line with the general belief that a good development process is associated with high quality contents, which is not always the case 30,31) . Appraising guidelines is not without challenge, as a range of tools/instruments exist that have been used to appraise other occupational health guidelines 32) .…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Inconsistencies in Guidelines for Visual Health Surveillance of VDT Workers

Seguí

Ronda

Wimpenny

2012

Journal of Occupational Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Inconsistencies in Guidelines for Visual Health Surveillance of VDT Workers: María del Mar SEGUÍ, et al. Optic, Pharmacology and Anatomy Department, Public Health Research Group, University of Alicante, Spain— Objectives In Europe, 25% of workers use video display terminals (VDTs). Occupational health surveillance has been considered a key element in the protection of these workers. Nevertheless, it is unclear if guidelines available for this purpose, based on EU standards and available evidence, meet currently Accepted quality criteria. The aim of this study was to appraise three sets of European VDT guidelines (UK, France, Spain) in which regulatory and evidence based approaches for visual health have been formulated and recommendations for practice made. Methods Three independent appraisers used an adapted AGREE instrument with seven domains to appraise the guidelines. A modified nominal group technique approach was used in two consecutive phases: first, individual evaluation of the three guidelines simultaneously, and second, a face‐to‐face meeting of appraisers to discuss scoring. Analysis of ratings obtained in each domain and variability among appraisers was undertaken (correlation and kappa coefficients). Results All guidelines had low domain scores. The domain evaluated most highly was Scope and purpose, while Applicability was scored minimally. The UK guidelines had the highest overall score, and the Spanish ones had the lowest. The analysis of reliability and differences between scores in each domain showed a high level of agreement. Conclusions These results suggest current guidelines used in these countries need an update. The formulation of evidence‐base European guidelines on VDT could help to reduce the significant variation of national guidelines, which may have an impact on practical application.

show abstract

“…Future research should investigate how guideline adherence can be improved (37,38). Answering the question of why guideline adherence is low and acting on this answer could be a greater influence on the effectiveness of the guideline than changing its contents alone (39).…”

Section: Return To Work and Physician's Management Of Mental Problemsmentioning

confidence: 99%