A narrative review of global and national physical activity and sedentary behaviour guidelines development processes - The GUidelines Standards (GUS) project

Milton, Karen ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0506-2214, Hanson, Coral L., Pearsons, Alice, Chou, Roger and Stamatakis, Emmanuel (2024) A narrative review of global and national physical activity and sedentary behaviour guidelines development processes - The GUidelines Standards (GUS) project. Preventive Medicine, 183. ISSN 0091-7435

Preview

PDF (1-s2.0-S0091743524001142-main) - Accepted Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial. Download (1MB) | Preview

Abstract

Background: Clinical and public health guidelines serve to direct clinical practice and policy, based on the best available evidence. The World Health Organization (WHO) and national health bodies of many countries have released physical activity and sedentary behaviour guidelines. Despite significant overlap in the body of evidence reviewed, the guidelines differ across jurisdictions. This study aimed to review the processes used to develop global and national physical activity and sedentary behaviour guidelines and examine the extent to which they conform with a recommended methodological standard for the development of guidelines. Methods: We extracted data on nine sets of guidelines from seven jurisdictions (WHO, Australia, Canada, Japan, the Netherlands, United Kingdom, and United States). We rated each set of guidelines as high, medium, or low quality on criteria related to the rigour of the development process. Results: We observed variation in the quality of guidelines development processes across jurisdictions and across different criteria. Guidelines received the strongest overall ratings for criteria on clearly describing the evidence selected and stating an explicit link between the recommendations and the supporting evidence. Guidelines received the weakest overall ratings for criteria related to clearly describing the methods used to formulate the recommendations and reporting external review by experts prior to publication. Evaluated against the selected criteria, the strongest processes were undertaken by the WHO and Canada. Conclusions: Reaching agreement on acceptable guideline development processes, as well as the inclusion and appraisal procedures of different types of evidence, would help to strengthen and align future guidelines.

Item Type:	Article
Additional Information:	Funding information: ES is funded by an NHMRC Investigator Grant level 2 (APP1194510).
Uncontrolled Keywords:	sdg 3 - good health and well-being ,/dk/atira/pure/sustainabledevelopmentgoals/good_health_and_well_being
Faculty \ School:	Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences > Norwich Medical School
Depositing User:	LivePure Connector
Date Deposited:	19 Apr 2024 14:30
Last Modified:	24 Apr 2024 13:30
URI:	https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/id/eprint/94977
DOI:	10.1016/j.ypmed.2024.107959

Downloads

Actions (login required)

View Item