Facilitators and Barriers to Successful Collaboration in Guideline Development: Experiential Insights of Collaborative Guideline Developers

ABSTRACT Objective The current study aimed to elucidate themes that contributed to successful and unsuccessful collaborative guideline development between organisations. Study Design and Setting The reporting of qualitative methods was checked against the Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ) checklist. A purposive sampling approach was used to recruit participants with experience or affiliations in collaborative guideline development. Participants completed a pre‐interview questionnaire and took part in semi‐structured interviews. Interview transcripts were coded using inductive thematic analysis methodology. Results The thematic analysis of guideline developer interviews ( n = 14) identified three interconnected theme sets and secondary sub‐themes. Misalignment of collaboration purpose and scope, misalignment of guideline development methodologies, and perception that such collaborations require more time and effort were identified as barriers. Technologies and templates that support collaborative work, initial scoping and planning among collaborators, organisational guideline topic prioritisation work, culture of collaboration, and recognising collaboration benefits were identified as facilitators. Cross‐cutting themes, which appeared to either enhance or hinder collaboration based on interviewee context, included past collaborative experiences, publication of completed work, and levels of knowledge and training among collaborators. Conclusion This analysis demonstrated facilitators and barriers to collaborative guideline development are interconnected. Future research into collaborative guideline development should look towards validating these findings in a more geographically diverse sample and investigate the mechanisms through which barrier, facilitator and cross‐cutting themes contribute to guideline collaboration between organisations. Further understanding of factors that can impede or expedite successful collaboration provide opportunities to identify effective strategies for overcoming perceived barriers to collaboration. Findings from this study can be used to bolster collaborative efforts by encouraging alignment in processes, methodology, and expectations, as well as promoting collective knowledge and resource sharing between collaborators within different guideline development organisations.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Clinical and Public Health Guidelines
Published
2025-08-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.70036
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
3.76

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Facilitators and Barriers to Successful Collaboration in Guideline Development: Experiential Insights of Collaborative Guideline Developers

Aggie Bak, Pamela Ginex, Emily Senerth, Rachel E. Christensen et al.
2 citations
Clinical and Public Health Guidelines
Clinical practice guidelines implementation
3.76
article

Facilitators and Barriers to Successful Collaboration in Guideline Development: Experiential Insights of Collaborative Guideline Developers

Aggie Bak, Pamela Ginex, Emily Senerth, Rachel E. Christensen, Chatura Prematunge, Christina B. Ventura, Robyn Temple‐Smolkin, Toju Ogunremi, Rebecca L. Morgan, Emma McFarlane, Holger J. Schünemann, Yasser Sami Amer, Priya Jakhmola, Murad Alam, Bright Huo, Heba Hussein, Umer Nadir, Amanda Graham, Michael Yi
article en
2 citations

Abstract

ABSTRACT Objective The current study aimed to elucidate themes that contributed to successful and unsuccessful collaborative guideline development between organisations. Study Design and Setting The reporting of qualitative methods was checked against the Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ) checklist. A purposive sampling approach was used to recruit participants with experience or affiliations in collaborative guideline development. Participants completed a pre‐interview questionnaire and took part in semi‐structured interviews. Interview transcripts were coded using inductive thematic analysis methodology. Results The thematic analysis of guideline developer interviews ( n = 14) identified three interconnected theme sets and secondary sub‐themes. Misalignment of collaboration purpose and scope, misalignment of guideline development methodologies, and perception that such collaborations require more time and effort were identified as barriers. Technologies and templates that support collaborative work, initial scoping and planning among collaborators, organisational guideline topic prioritisation work, culture of collaboration, and recognising collaboration benefits were identified as facilitators. Cross‐cutting themes, which appeared to either enhance or hinder collaboration based on interviewee context, included past collaborative experiences, publication of completed work, and levels of knowledge and training among collaborators. Conclusion This analysis demonstrated facilitators and barriers to collaborative guideline development are interconnected. Future research into collaborative guideline development should look towards validating these findings in a more geographically diverse sample and investigate the mechanisms through which barrier, facilitator and cross‐cutting themes contribute to guideline collaboration between organisations. Further understanding of factors that can impede or expedite successful collaboration provide opportunities to identify effective strategies for overcoming perceived barriers to collaboration. Findings from this study can be used to bolster collaborative efforts by encouraging alignment in processes, methodology, and expectations, as well as promoting collective knowledge and resource sharing between collaborators within different guideline development organisations.

Clinical and Public Health GuidelinesVol. 2(4)
Northwestern University (US), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US), Dalhousie University (CA), Cairo University (EG), College of American Pathologists (US), Public Health Agency of Canada (CA), King Saud University (SA), National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (GB), Healthcare Infection Society (GB), Association of Community Cancer Centers (US), Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (US), Action Network (US), Case Western Reserve University (US), Stony Brook University (US), McMaster University (CA)
Northwestern University, Public Health Agency of Canada, Public Health Agency
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Clinical practice guidelines implementation
3.76
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.