MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409035840 · doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2025.103135

Enhancing health equity considerations in guidelines: health equity extension of the GIN-McMaster Guideline Development Checklist

2025· article· en· W4409035840 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Omar Dewidar, Shahab Sayfi, Jordi Pardo Pardo, Vivian Welch, Grace C. Wright, Elie A. Akl, Joanne Khabsa, Jennifer S Lin, Xiaoqin Wang, Andrea Darzi, Tamara Lotfi, Kevin Pottie, Jana Khawandi, Rebecca L. Morgan, Ana Carolina Pereira Nunes Pinto, Janice Tufte, Sue Brennan, Ashley Motilall, Oyekola Oloyede, Reem A. Mustafa, Jennifer Petkovic, Robby Nieuwlaat, Jun Xia, Xiaomei Yao, Yuan Chi, Holger J. Schünemann, Peter Tugwell

Bibliographic record

VenueEClinicalMedicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalWestern UniversityImpactMcMaster UniversityUniversity of TorontoCochraneBruyèreUniversity of Ottawa
FundersPublic Health AgencyPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsMedicineGuidelineChecklistEquity (law)PathologyLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Practice guidelines may reduce health inequities by addressing preventable and unjust differences in health. However, health equity considerations are often inadequately integrated into the guideline planning and development process. This article describes a pragmatic approach to enhancing health equity considerations within guidelines by introducing an extension to the GIN-McMaster Guideline Development Checklist (GDC). Methods: We reviewed the latest guidance on enhancing health equity considerations in guideline development to draft the checklist and deployed a global online survey from March 27th, 2024, to May 13th, 2024 to gather consensus. We conducted a methodological review of guideline development handbooks to identify best practices in health equity considerations. An advisory board comprised of diverse interest-holders informed the development of the checklist. We made revisions based on the survey feedback and review findings. Findings: We present 21 extension items spanning 16 of the 18 guideline development topics from the GIN-McMaster GDC. Key additions include planning for engagement with individuals experiencing inequities in guideline development activities, applying an equity lens, and considering health equity in recommendation formulation, dissemination and implementation strategies. This checklist gives value to lived experiences to enrich health equity assessments, complementing empirical evidence to inform guideline recommendations. Guideline developers should assess guideline sensitivity to health equity to determine resource prioritization for optimal implementation of the extension items. Interpretation: The GIN-McMaster health equity extension provides guidance for the streamlined integration of health equity considerations throughout the guideline development process. Using this tool alongside the original GIN-McMaster GDC may lead to more equitable and impactful guidelines. Funding: This project was partially funded by Public Health Agency of Canada. The funder was not involved in the conceptualization or design or the conduct of the project.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.058
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.682
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.058
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.400
GPT teacher head0.593
Teacher spread0.193 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEClinicalMedicineSame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207