Quality Appraisal of Clinical Practice Guidelines in Psychosocial Oncology Using the
AGREE
‐
II
Instrument
Catherine Bergeron, Michelle Azzi, Catherine Hébert, Kia Watkins‐Martin, Adina Coroiu, Carmen G. Loiselle, Martin Drapeau, Annett Körner ABSTRACT
Objective
The use of evidence in clinical practice is essential for the provision of best practice care in psychosocial oncology. However, research demonstrates gaps in the implementation of evidence‐based interventions and important resource barriers for clinicians. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are designed to translate the latest evidence into recommendations applicable within various clinical domains. A recent study identified 23 English‐language, up‐to‐date psychosocial oncology CPGs. The present study sought to systematically assess the quality of these tools.
Methods
CPGs were independently evaluated by four trained appraisers using the AGREE II tool, consisting of 23 items across six domains. Quality was determined using aggregate and consensus domain scores (0%–100%), with an acceptability cut‐off score of 60%.
Results
Findings revealed that 20 of the 23 CPGs (87%) met the acceptability threshold (M = 76.45, SD = 12.35). The highest average domain scores were observed for Clarity of Presentation (M = 96.26, SD = 6.25) and Scope and Purpose (M = 87.38, SD = 19.55) while Applicability received the lowest score (M = 33.83, SD = 10.72). Rigor of Development scores (M = 71.17, SD = 17.46) demonstrated substantial variations across CPGs.
Conclusions
Findings indicate that psychosocial oncology CPGs are specific and clear but may benefit from more transparency in reporting procedures and greater consideration of applicability and implementation strategies. These findings may help illuminate guideline developers on gaps in current tools and serve to inform clinicians on the strengths and shortcomings of these tools prior to selecting which ones to integrate within their clinical practice.