Search

Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) have been shown to improve healthcare services and clinical outcomes. However, they are useful resources only to the degree that they are developed according to the most rigorous standards. Multiple studies have demonstrated significant variability between CPGs with regard to specific indicators of quality. The Ordre des psychologues du Québec (OPQ), the College of psychologists of Quebec, has published several CPGs that are intended to provide empirically supported guidance for psychologists in the areas of assessment, diagnosis, general functioning, treatment and other decision-making support. The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality of these CPGs.The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument was used to assess the quality of the CPGs.Our results show that although there have been some modest improvements in quality of the CPGs over time, there are important methodological inadequacies in all CPGs evaluated.The findings of this study demonstrate the need for more methodological rigour in CPGs development as such, recommendations to improve CPG quality are discussed.

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.

Despite the availability and proliferation of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and of methods to design such guidelines in recent years, a growing body of evidence suggests that the quality of CPGs can often be dubious, typically pointing to a lack of methodological rigor in guideline development. In the social sciences and in psychology, numerous CPGs have been developed, yet research has failed to investigate their quality and methodology. This pilot study evaluated the 5 available guidelines of the Order of Psychologists of Quebec (OPQ) using a scoring system proposed by Ansari and Rashidian (2012) for examining guideline development tasks. The method consisted of rating CPGs based on the absence, presence, or detailed consideration of 27 tasks involved in guideline development. Overall, results suggest that the CPGs did not implement important tasks for guideline development, and were far below the acceptable standards in guideline development procedures. A minimal number of the necessary tasks for guideline development were addressed in the CPGs. These findings suggest there are important problems with the development and quality of these CPGs. The pilot study also points to the need for conducting future research on the clinical guidelines used in psychology.Keywords: clinical practice guidelines, clinical guidelines, evidence based practice, methodological rigor, qualityResumeMalgre la disponibilite et la proliferation des guides de pratique clinique (GPC) et des methodes d'elaboration de ces guides au cours des dernieres annees, de plus en plus de preuves indiquent que la qualite des GPC est souvent discutable, indiquant probable- ment un manque de rigueur methodologique au niveau de l'elaboration des lignes directrices. Dans le domaine des sciences sociales et de la psychologie, de nombreux GPC ont ete mis au point. Or, les recherches n'ont pas etudie leur qualite ni leur methodologie. Cette etude pilote visait a evaluer les cinq guides de pratique cliniques de l'Ordre des psychologues du Quebec (OPQ) a l'aide d'un systeme de notation propose par Ansari et Rashidian (2012) afin d'examiner les tâches impliquees dans l'elaboration des guides en question. La methode consistait a evaluer les GPC en se basant sur l'absence, la presence ou l'examen detaille de 27 tâches impliquees dans l'elaboration des guides. Dans l'ensemble, les resultats revelent que les GPC n'ont pas mis en oeuvre d'importantes tâches reliees a l'elaboration de ces derniers et se trouvaient bien en deca des normes acceptables en matiere d'elaboration de lignes directrices. Un tres faible nombre des tâches necessaires a l'elaboration de lignes directrices ont ete prises en compte dans les GPC. Les conclusions de cette etude mettent en lumiere les lacunes importantes au niveau de l'elaboration et de la qualite de ces GPC. L'etude pilote souligne egalement la necessite d'effectuer des recherches ulterieures sur les lignes directrices cliniques utilisees en psychologie.Mots-cles : guides de pratique clinique, lignes directrices cliniques, pratique fondee sur les preuves, rigueur methodologique, qualite.Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are often defined as "sys- tematically developed statements to assist practitioners and patient decisions about appropriate health care for specific clinical cir- cumstances" (Field & Lohr, 1990, p. 2). More recently, in an effort to propose a definition of CPGs that may be more appropriate for psychology and the social sciences, a taskforce of the Institut National d'Excellence en Sante et Services Sociaux (INESSS) proposed to define CPGs as:Recommendations developed systematically and transparently by and for the stakeholders concerned with a specific intervention in social care. These recommendations are founded on robust scien- tific data supported by exhaustive contextual data and expert knowledge, particularly that of researchers, managers, social care practitioners, and social care users. …

Individuals with depression process information in an overly negative or biased way (e.g., Henriques & Leitenberg, 2002) and demonstrate significant interpersonal dysfunction (e.g., Zlotnick, Kohn, Keitner, & Della Grotta, 2000). This study examined the relationship between cognitive errors (CEs) and interpersonal interactions in early psychotherapy sessions of 25 female patients with major depression. Transcripts were rated for CEs using the Cognitive Error Rating Scale (Drapeau, Perry, & Dunkley, 2008). Interpersonal patterns were assessed using the Structural Analysis of Social Behavior (Benjamin, 1974). Significant associations were found between CEs and markers of interpersonal functioning in selected contexts. The implications of these findings in bridging the gap between research and practice, enhancing treatment outcome, and improving therapist training are discussed.