↓ Skip to main content

The advantages and limitations of guideline adaptation frameworks

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, May 2018
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 (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
22 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
101 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
205 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
The advantages and limitations of guideline adaptation frameworks
Published in
Implementation Science, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13012-018-0763-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zhicheng Wang, Susan L. Norris, Lisa Bero

Abstract

The implementation of evidence-based guidelines can improve clinical and public health outcomes by helping health professionals practice in the most effective manner, as well as assisting policy-makers in designing optimal programs. Adaptation of a guideline to suit the context in which it is intended to be applied can be a key step in the implementation process. Without taking the local context into account, certain interventions recommended in evidence-based guidelines may be infeasible under local conditions. Guideline adaptation frameworks provide a systematic way of approaching adaptation, and their use may increase transparency, methodological rigor, and the quality of the adapted guideline. This paper presents a number of adaptation frameworks that are currently available. We aim to compare the advantages and limitations of their processes, methods, and resource implications. These insights into adaptation frameworks can inform the future development of guidelines and systematic methods to optimize their adaptation. Recent adaptation frameworks show an evolution from adapting entire existing guidelines, to adapting specific recommendations extracted from an existing guideline, to constructing evidence tables for each recommendation that needs to be adapted. This is a move towards more recommendation-focused, context-specific processes and considerations. There are still many gaps in knowledge about guideline adaptation. Most of the frameworks reviewed lack any evaluation of the adaptation process and outcomes, including user satisfaction and resources expended. The validity, usability, and health impact of guidelines developed via an adaptation process have not been studied. Lastly, adaptation frameworks have not been evaluated for use in low-income countries. Despite the limitations in frameworks, a more systematic approach to adaptation based on a framework is valuable, as it helps to ensure that the recommendations stay true to the evidence while taking local needs into account. The utilization of frameworks in the guideline implementation process can be optimized by increasing the understanding and upfront estimation of resource and time needed, capacity building in adaptation methods, and increasing the adaptability of the source recommendation document.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 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 205 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 205 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 28 14%
Student > Master 28 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 11%
Student > Bachelor 14 7%
Student > Postgraduate 12 6%
Other 41 20%
Unknown 59 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 13%
Psychology 11 5%
Social Sciences 10 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 3%
Other 36 18%
Unknown 75 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 26 October 2023.
All research outputs
#1,614,622
of 25,765,370 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#279
of 1,821 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,549
of 345,856 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#8
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,765,370 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,821 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 done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 345,856 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.