Department of Counselling Psychology, McGill University, 3700 McTavish, Montreal, QC, H3A 1Y2, Canada.
Montreal West Island Integrated University Health and Social Services Center, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Adm Policy Ment Health. 2021 Nov;48(6):937-941. doi: 10.1007/s10488-021-01110-0. Epub 2021 Feb 12.
The development and implementation of clinical practice guidelines has flourished over the past two decades. Unfortunately, many studies have found that the quality of such guidelines is highly variable (Alonso-Coello et al. in Qual Safe Health Care 19:e58, 2010; MacQueen et al. in Can J Psychiatry 62:11-23, 2016); research suggests that some of the guidelines used in psychology have been developed using poor methods for guideline development (Bennett et al. in Depress Anxiety 35:330-340, 2018; Trepanier et al. in: Can Psychol 58: 211-217, 2017). While there remains a dearth of research in this area, typically, it is guidelines themselves that are examined by researchers, while too little attention is paid to the developers, and more specifically to how the guideline development groups are composed and the nature of the expertise of those involved in developing the guidelines. Given the importance of grounding guidelines in science, it is key that guideline development groups be comprised of research experts that will help ensure that this essential aspect be respected. In this brief paper, we provide findings from a recent study in which group composition as well as the expertise of guideline development committee members at the Order of Psychologists of Quebec (OPQ) was examined, as defined by academic research productivity. As results highlighted a clear imbalance between clinical and research expertise in these specific committees, with only a small percentage of researchers being represented, we conclude that major improvements need to be made for research to properly reach practitioners and make recommendations to facilitate this.
在过去的二十年中，临床实践指南的制定和实施蓬勃发展。不幸的是，许多研究发现，这些指南的质量差异很大（Alonso-Coello 等人，2010 年，《质量安全医疗保健》19:e58；MacQueen 等人，2016 年，《加拿大精神病学杂志》62:11-23）；研究表明，一些在心理学中使用的指南是使用较差的指南制定方法开发的（Bennett 等人，2018 年，《抑郁与焦虑》35:330-340；Trepanier 等人，2017 年，《加拿大心理学》58:211-217）。虽然在这一领域的研究仍然很少，但通常情况下，研究人员都是检查指南本身，而对指南的制定者关注较少，更具体地说，对指南制定小组的组成以及参与制定指南的人员的专业知识性质关注较少。鉴于将指南建立在科学基础上的重要性，指南制定小组应由研究专家组成，这将有助于确保尊重这一重要方面。在这篇简短的论文中，我们提供了最近一项研究的结果，该研究检查了魁北克省心理学家协会（OPQ）的指南制定委员会成员的组成以及他们的专业知识，这是根据学术研究生产力来定义的。研究结果突出表明，这些特定委员会的临床和研究专业知识之间存在明显的不平衡，只有一小部分研究人员代表，因此我们得出结论，必须进行重大改进，以使研究能够真正为从业者服务，并提出建议以促进这一点。
