Volume 19, Issue 5 pp. 773-781
Original Article

Adapting low back pain guidelines within a multidisciplinary context: a process evaluation

Christa Harstall MHSA

Christa Harstall MHSA

Director

Search for more papers by this author
Paul Taenzer PhD

Paul Taenzer PhD

Specialist/Clinical Psychologist, Calgary Pain Program, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Search for more papers by this author
Nancy Zuck MSc

Nancy Zuck MSc

Director and Principal, Sumera Management Consulting, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Search for more papers by this author
Donna K. Angus MSA Health Services

Donna K. Angus MSA Health Services

Director, Knowledge Transfer Initiatives, Alberta Innovates – Health Solutions, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Search for more papers by this author
Carmen Moga MD

Carmen Moga MD

Research Associate, Health Technology Assessment Unit, Institute of Health Economics, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Search for more papers by this author
N. Ann Scott PhD

Corresponding Author

N. Ann Scott PhD

Research Associate, Health Technology Assessment Unit, Institute of Health Economics, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Dr Ann Scott, Institute of Health Economics, #1200, 10405 Jasper Avenue, Edmonton, AB, Canada T5J 3N4, E-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author
First published: 29 July 2012
Citations: 8

Abstract

Rationale, aims and objectives The Alberta Ambassador Program (AAP) adapted seven clinical practice guidelines on low back pain (LBP) into a single guideline spanning the continuum of care from prevention and diagnosis through to treatment. The Ambassador adaptation process was evaluated to

  • 1

    Identify the major challenges encountered and successful strategies utilized;

  • 2

    Assess strengths and weaknesses by benchmarking it with the ADAPTE framework; and

  • 3

    Identify opportunities for improvement.

Method External consultants reviewed the Ambassador and ADAPTE materials and conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with 29 participants from the AAP committees. All participants were asked about the major challenges encountered and potential areas for improvement.

Results The response rate was 83% (29/35). There was strong consensus that the Ambassador guideline adaptation process was sound and rigorous all respondents indicated willingness to participate in further iterations of the Program. Key elements of success were identified. The main steps and sequence of the process were closely aligned with the ADAPTE framework, although the AAP incorporated additional enhancements which augmented the process. The main divergences between the two frameworks centred on the organizational structure and the methods used to overcome methodological difficulties.

Conclusion The AAP successfully utilized existing stakeholder interest to create an overarching guideline for managing LBP across multiple primary care disciplines. The study highlighted the strengths and weaknesses of the Program, and identified practical strategies for improvement. Evaluating guideline adaptation processes is pivotal to ensuring that they continue to be an efficient, rigorous and practicable option for producing contextualized, clinically relevant guidelines.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.