Clinical practice guidelines in Brazil : developing a national programme

• Autor(a) principal: Colpani, Verônica
• Data de Publicação: 2020
• Outros Autores: Kowalski, Sérgio Candido, Stein, Airton Tetelbom, Buehler, Anna Maria, Zanetti, Daniel, Côrtes, Gabriel, Melo Junior, Edison Vieira de, Ebeidalla, Jorgiany Emerick, Oliveira, Natiela Beatriz de, Guerra, Renata Leborato, Silva, Sarah Nascimento, Duncan, Bruce Bartholow, Falavigna, Maicon, Schünemann, Holger J.
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UFRGS
• Texto Completo: http://hdl.handle.net/10183/223231
• topic: Protocolos clínicos; Medicina baseada em evidências; Prática clínica baseada em evidências; Guias de prática clínica como assunto; Brasil; Guideline development; Evidence-based medicine; Brazil; Clinical practice

In Brazil, governmental and non-governmental organisations develop practice guidelines (PGs) in order to optimise patient care. Although important improvements have been made over the past years, many of these documents still lack transparency and methodological rigour. In order to conduct a critical analysis and define future steps in PG development in Brazil, we carried out a structured assessment of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT analysis) for the development of a national guideline programme. Participants consisted of academia, methodologists, medical societies and healthcare system representatives. In summary, the PG development process has improved in Brazil and current investments in methodological research and capacity-building are ongoing. Despite the centralised processes for public PGs, standardised procedures for their development are not well established and human resources are insufficient in number and capacity to develop the amount of trustworthy documents needed. Brazil’s capacity could be strengthened and initial efforts have been made such as the adoption of standards proposed by world-renowned institutions in PG development and enhancement of the involvement of key stakeholders. Further steps involve the alignment between health technology assessment and PG processes for synergy and the development of a national network to promote the interaction between groups involved in the development of PGs. The lessons learned from this paper could be used to foster debate on guideline development, especially for countries facing similar threats on this topic.