Developing a checklist for guideline implementation planning: review and synthesis of guideline development and implementation advice
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Developers, users and others have requested or advocated for guidance on how to plan for, and implement guidelines concurrent to their development given that existing resources are lacking such information. The purpose of this research was to develop a guideline implementation planning checklist. METHODS: Documents that described or evaluated the processes of planning or undertaking implementation were identified in several publications that had systematically identified such resources, and by searching medical literature databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE). Data that described implementation planning; how to develop guideline versions or tools that would support user implementation; and options and mechanisms for disseminating or implementing guidelines were independently extracted from eligible documents by the principal investigator and a trained research assistant. Data were integrated to create a unique list of guideline implementation planning processes and considerations. RESULTS: Thirty-five documents were eligible. Of these, 16 (45.7%) provided sparse information on implementation planning, 25 (71.4%) mentioned different versions or tools for implementation, and 30 (85.7%) listed options for dissemination or implementation. None provided instructions for operationalizing implementation strategies. Data were integrated into a multi-item Guideline Implementation Planning Checklist including considerations for implementation planning (12), development of implementation tools (8), types of implementation tools (12), and options for dissemination (11) and implementation (12). CONCLUSIONS: Developers or users can apply the Guideline Implementation Planning Checklist to prepare for and/or undertake guideline implementation. Further development of the checklist is warranted to elaborate on all components. In ongoing research, we will consult with the international guideline community to do so. At the same time, guideline implementation is complex, so developers and users would benefit from training, and by including knowledge translation experts and brokers on implementation planning committees.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it