Users Online: 1871 Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
 

 

Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
     
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2015  |  Volume : 59  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 264-271

Appraisal of maternity management and family planning guidelines using the agree II instrument in India


1 Research Associate, Foumdation for Research in Community Health, Pune, Maharashtra, India
2 Research Officer, Foumdation for Research in Community Health, Pune, Maharashtra, India
3 Associate Director, NICE International, National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE), United Kingdom
4 Director, Foumdation for Research in Community Health, Pune, Maharashtra, India

Correspondence Address:
Nerges F Mistry
3-4 85, Trimiti B Apartment, Anand Park, Aundh, Pune - 411 007, Maharashtra
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0019-557X.169651

Rights and Permissions

Introduction: Guideline development gathered pace in India after the inception of National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) in 2005. However, there is a lack of adequate information about guideline development process, review, and update. This paper reports on the systematic appraisal of Indian guidelines related to maternity management (MM) and family planning (FP) using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument, which was one of the components of a pilot research in 2012-13. Materials and Methods: Forty-four selected guidelines about MM and FP, identified through a consensus building workshop, were independently appraised by two appraisers with AGREE instrument having six different domains. Mean item scores, domain scores, and standardized scores were calculated by averaging the scores across the two appraisers. Results: Most guidelines scored high in scope and purpose and clarity of presentation. However, they had little documentation about the development group member details, incorporation of patient views, evidence search method, method chosen for formulating recommendations, tools for application, potential barriers, cost implications, and information about the funding body. Nonclinical guidelines scored higher than clinical guidelines (P = 0.01) for MM in the domain applicability. Clinical FP guidelines scored higher than nonclinical guidelines in the domain of rigor of development (0.01). Conclusion: Despite being clinically sound, Indian guidelines score poorly due to weak documentation about their development process. It is recommended that the guideline development process be improved with systematic documentation for achieving standardization.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1957    
    Printed33    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded359    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 3    

Recommend this journal