According to the practice guideline for HIV prevention updat
According to the practice guideline for HIV prevention updated… According to the practice guideline for HIV prevention updated 2017. https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/risk/prep/cdc-hiv-prep-guidelines-2017.pdf Is the item well written? Are the descriptions clear and concise? Is the item content easy to find in the guideline? Are the members an appropriate match for the topic and scope? Potential candidates include relevant clinicians, content experts, researchers, policy makers, clinical administrators, and funders. Is there at least one methodology expert included in the development group (e.g., systematic review expert, epidemiologist, statistician, library scientist, etc.)? Are the target users appropriate for the scope of the guideline? Is there enough information provided to know when an update will occur or what criteria would trigger an update? Are the external reviewers relevant and appropriate to the scope of the guideline? Was there a rationale given for choosing the included reviewers? How was information from the external review used by the guideline development group? When evidence is lacking or a recommendation is informed primarily by consensus of opinion by the guideline group, rather than the evidence, is this clearly stated and described? Is the discussion an integral part of the guideline development process? (i.e., taking place during recommendation formulation rather than post-formulation as an afterthought) Has the guideline development group considered the benefits and harms equally? Was a formal process used to arrive at the recommendations? Were the methods appropriate? Are the descriptions appropriate, neutral, and unbiased? Are the descriptions complete? Is there a rationale given for the chosen inclusion/exclusion criteria? Do inclusion/exclusion criteria align with the health (s)? Are there reasons to believe that relevant literature may not have been considered? Is there enough information provided for anyone to replicate the search? In the event of multiple recommendations (e.g., management guidelines), is there clarity regarding to whom each recommendation applies? If there is uncertainty in the interpretation and discussion of the evidence, is the uncertainty reflected in the recommendations and explicitly stated? Is this pertaining to a guideline broad or narrow in scope? This item may be more relevant to guidelines that are broad in scope (e.g., covering the management of a condition or issue rather than focusing on a particular set of interventions for a specific condition/issue) Are the key recommendations appropriately selected and do they reflect the key messages of the guideline? Are specific recommendations grouped in a section placed near the summary of the key evidence?Does the guideline suggest specific strategies to overcoming the barriers? Is there information about the development of the implementation tools and validation procedures? Were appropriate experts involved in finding and analyzing the cost information? How did the guideline development group address potential influence from the funding body? Are a range of criteria provided including process measures, behavioral measures, and clinical or health outcomes? What measures were taken to minimize the influence of competing interests on guideline development or formulation of the recommendations? Health Science Science Nursing NUR 787
LET THE EXPERTS DO YOUR HOMEWORK NOW
Do you have a similar question? Our professional writers have done a similar paper in past.
Give Us your instructions and wait for a professional assignment!
Get a plagiarism-free order today
we guarantee confidentiality and a professional paper and we will meet the deadline.
How it works
Will the writer plagiarize my essay?
You will get a plagiarism-free paper and you can get an originality report upon request.
Is this service safe?
All personal information is confidential and we have 100% safe payment methods. We also guarantee good grades