| Title |
A Theoretical Framework and Competency-Based Approach to Training in Guideline Development
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of General Internal Medicine, November 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11606-019-05502-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Shahnaz Sultan, Rebecca L. Morgan, M. Hassan Murad, Yngve Falck-Ytter, Philipp Dahm, Holger J. Schünemann, Reem A. Mustafa |
| Abstract |
There is increasing requirement to develop guidelines using transparent, standardized, and rigorous methods. Consequently, a better understanding of the knowledge, skills, and expertise necessary for guideline development is needed. The aim of this manuscript is to describe a theoretical framework of knowledge and skills that are required for individuals to serve on a guideline panel in varying capacities. Based on an iterative process and review of published manuscripts focused on guideline development, we identified competencies, subcompetencies, and milestones. Using a competency-based approach to training and the Dreyfus model of skill acquisition, we identified three core competencies: (1) facilitate the development of guideline structure and setup, (2) make judgments about the quality or certainty of the evidence, and (3) transform evidence to a recommendation. Level 1 focuses on recognizing and acknowledging the importance of a specific skill or behavior. Levels 2 and 3 require learners to demonstrate progressive acquisition of knowledge and application to specific behaviors. Level 4 represents the individual who has acquired the requisite knowledge and can function independently, while level 5 represents the mastery/aspirational level. We propose a preliminary competency-based education framework that will (1) help standardize the qualifications needed for individuals to serve on guideline panels in varying capacities or (2) help with curricula development for teaching and training of guideline panel members. This framework can also help enable guideline-producing organizations to identify guideline methodologists with the relevant and appropriate level of knowledge and skills to lead guidelines. Validation of the framework and further refinement of the competencies and milestones will be required before widespread adoption. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 7 | 33% |
| Italy | 2 | 10% |
| United States | 2 | 10% |
| Germany | 2 | 10% |
| Spain | 1 | 5% |
| Brazil | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 6 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 14 | 67% |
| Scientists | 4 | 19% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 10% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 69 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 11 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 10% |
| Lecturer | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 7% |
| Researcher | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 12 | 17% |
| Unknown | 25 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 9% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 6% |
| Psychology | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 9 | 13% |
| Unknown | 28 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 07 June 2021.
All research outputs
#2,120,827
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#1,617
of 7,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,841
of 362,967 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#52
of 217 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 362,967 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 217 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.