↓ Skip to main content

Improving the adaptability of WHO evidence-informed guidelines for nutrition actions: results of a mixed methods evaluation

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Improving the adaptability of WHO evidence-informed guidelines for nutrition actions: results of a mixed methods evaluation
Published in
Implementation Science, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13012-017-0571-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maria Cecilia Dedios, Alexo Esperato, Luz Maria De-Regil, Juan Pablo Peña-Rosas, Susan L. Norris

Abstract

Over the past decade, the World Health Organization (WHO) has implemented a standardized, evidence-informed guideline development process to assure technically sound and policy-relevant guidelines. This study is an independent evaluation of the adaptability of the guidelines produced by the Evidence and Programme Guidance unit, at the Department of Nutrition for Health and Development (NHD). The study systematizes the lessons learned by the NHD group at WHO. We used a mixed methods approach to determine the adaptability of the nutrition guidelines. Adaptability was defined as having two components; methodological quality and implementability of guidelines. Additionally, we gathered recommendations to improve future guideline development in nutrition actions for health and development. Data sources for this evaluation were official documentation and feedback (both qualitative and quantitative) from key stakeholders involved in the development of nutrition guidelines. The qualitative data was collected through a desk review and two waves of semi-structured interviews (n = 12) and was analyzed through axial coding. Guideline adaptability was assessed quantitatively using two standardized instruments completed by key stakeholders. The Appraisal Guideline for Research and Evaluation questionnaire, version II was used to assess guideline quality (n = 6), while implementability was assessed with the electronic version of the GuideLine Implementability Appraisal (n = 7). The nutrition evidence-informed guideline development process has several strengths, among them are the appropriate management of conflicts of interest of guideline developers and the systematic use of high-quality evidence to inform the recommendations. These features contribute to increase the methodological quality of the guidelines. The key areas for improvement are the limited implementability of the recommendations, the lack of explicit and precise implementation advice in the guidelines and challenges related to collaborative work within interdisciplinary groups. Overall, our study found that the nutrition evidence-informed guidelines are of good methodological quality but that the implementability requires improvement. The recommendations to improve guideline adaptability address the guideline content, the dynamics shaping interdisciplinary work, and actions for implementation feasibility. As WHO relies heavily on a standardized procedure to develop guidelines, the lessons learned may be applicable to guideline development across the organization and to other groups developing guidelines.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 49 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 12%
Professor 4 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 8%
Student > Master 4 8%
Other 8 16%
Unknown 17 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Computer Science 2 4%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 20 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 May 2018.
All research outputs
#3,603,146
of 25,463,724 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#720
of 1,812 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,856
of 323,179 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#26
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,463,724 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,812 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 323,179 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.