Download This Paper Open PDF in Browser Add Paper to My Library Share: Permalink Using these links will ensure access to this page indefinitely Copy URL Copy DOI

Objective: Collaboration between groups can facilitate the development of high-quality guidelines. While collaboration is often desirable, misunderstandings can occur. One method to minimize misunderstandings is the pre-specification of terms of engagement in a memorandum of understanding (MOU). This study considered when an MOU may be most helpful, and which key elements should be included. Study design and setting: An international panel of representatives from guideline groups was convened. A literature review to identify publications and other documents relevant to the establishment of MOUs between two or more guideline groups, supplemented by available source documents, was used to inform development of a draft MOU resource. This was iteratively refined until consensus was achieved. Results: The level of detail in an MOU may vary based on institutional preferences and the particular collaboration. Elements within an MOU include those pertaining to: (1) scope and purpose; (2) leadership and team; (3) methods and commitment; (4) review and endorsement; and (5) publication and dissemination. Conclusion: Since groups may have different expectations regarding how a collaboration will unfold, an MOU may mitigate preventable misunderstandings. The result may be a higher likelihood of producing a guideline without disruption and delay. (C) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

The development of rigorous, high-quality clinical guidelines increases the need for resources and skilled personnel within guideline-producing organizations. While collaboration between organizations provides a unique opportunity to pool resources and save time and effort, the collaboration presents its own unique challenges. To assess the perceived needs and current challenges of guideline producers worldwide related to guideline development and collaboration efforts. Survey questions were developed by the Guidelines International Network and the US GRADE Network, pilot-tested among attendees of a guideline development workshop, and disseminated electronically using convenience and snowball sampling methods. A total of 171 respondents representing 30 countries and more than 112 unique organizations were included in this analysis. The survey included free-response, multiple-choice, and seven-point Likert-scale questions. Questions assessed respondents’ perceived value of guidelines, resource availability and needs, guideline development processes, and collaboration efforts of their organization. Time required to develop high-quality systematic reviews and guidelines was the most relevant need (median=7; IQR=5.5–7). In-house resources to conduct literature searches (median=4; IQR=3–6) and the resources to develop rigorous guidelines rapidly (median=4; IQR=2–5) were perceived as the least available resources. Difficulties reconciling differences in guideline methodology (median=6; IQR=4–7) and the time required to establish collaborative agreements (median=6; IQR=5–6) were the most relevant barriers to collaboration between organizations. Results also indicated a general need for improvement in conflict of interest (COI) disclosure policies. The survey identified organizational challenges in supporting rigorous guideline development, including the time, resources, and personnel required. Connecting guideline developers to existing databases of high-quality systematic reviews and the use of freely available online platforms may facilitate guideline development. Guideline-producing organizations may also consider allocating resources to hiring or training personnel with expertise in systematic review methodologies or utilizing resources more effectively by establishing collaborations with other organizations.