Table 1.
Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) domain scores for reviewed documents.*
| Document name | Author | Funder(s) | Domain 1 | Domain 2 | Domain 3 | Domain 4 | Domain 5 | Domain 6 | Overall score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Canada | |||||||||
| Best Practices for Return-to-Work/ Stay-at-Work Interventions for Workers with Mental Health Conditions | Occupational Health and Safety Agency for Healthcare in BC | Occupational Health and Safety Agency for Healthcare in BC | 94.4% | 55.6% | 34.4% | 75.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 66.7% |
| Depression & Work Function: Bridging the Gap between Mental Health Care & the Workplace | The Depression in the Workplace Collaborative | Healthcare Benefit Trust, The Great West-Life Assurance Company, Mental Health Evaluation and Community Consultation Unit at the University of British Columbia | 58.3% | 52.8% | 0.0% | 72.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 41.7% |
| United Kingdom | |||||||||
| Best Practice in Rehabilitating Employees following Absence due to Work-Related Stress | Institute for Employment Studies | Health and Safety Executive | 75.0% | 44.4% | 16.7% | 27.8% | 14.6% | 50.0% | 33.3% |
| Managing Long-term Sickness and Incapacity for Work | NICE | NICE | 97.2% | 77.8% | 79.2% | 80.6% | 39.6% | 0.0% | 83.3% |
| Australia | |||||||||
| Helping Employees Successfully Return to Work following Depression, Anxiety or a Related Mental Health Problem. Guidelines for Organisations | Centre for Youth Mental Health, University of Melbourne | beyondblue, NHMRC Australia Fellowship | 88.9% | 77.8% | 36.5% | 55.6% | 22.9% | 0.0% | 66.7% |
a Each item within a domain had a minimum score of 1 and a maximum score of 7. Two raters scored each item independently. The maximum sum for a domain was the number of items × 2 (the number of raters) × 7 (the maximum score for an item). The domain score was calculated by summing all the scores in a domain and scaling the total as a percentage of the highest possible score for that domain. For each domain, the scores of all of the items assigned by both raters were summed. The scaled domain score was calculated as: [(obtained score – minimum possible score)/(maximum possible score – minimum possible score)] × 100. Document ratings used the AGREE II instrument. The purpose of these ratings was to assess guideline quality (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Instrument items and domains are as follows:
Domain 1: Scope and Purpose.
1. The overall objective(s) of the guideline is (are) specifically described.
2. The health question(s) covered by the guideline is (are) specifically described.
3. The population (patients, public, etc.) to whom the guideline is meant to apply is specifically described.
Domain 2: Stakeholder Involvement
4. Guideline development group includes individuals from all relevant professional groups.
5. View and preferences of the target population have been sought.
6. The target users of the guidelines are clearly defined.
Domain 3: Rigour of Development
7. Systematic methods were used to search for evidence.
8. The criteria for selecting the evidence are clearly described.
9. The strengths and limitations of the body of evidence are clearly described.
10. The methods for formulating the recommendations are clearly described.
11. Health benefits, side effects, and risks were considered in formulating the recommendations.
12. There is an explicit link between the recommendations and the supporting evidence.
13. The guideline has been externally reviewed by experts prior to its publication.
14. A procedure for updating the guideline is provided.
Domain 4: Clarity of Presentation
15. The recommendations are specific and unambiguous.
16. The different options for management of the condition or health issue are clearly presented.
17. Key recommendations are easily identifiable.
Domain 5: Applicability
18. The guideline describes facilitators and barriers to its application.
19. The guideline provides advice and/or tools on how the recommendations can be put into practice.
20. The potential resource implications of applying the recommendations have been considered.
21. The guideline presents monitoring and/or auditing criteria.
Domain 6: Editorial Independence
22. The views of the funding body have not influenced the content of the guideline.
23. Competing interests of guideline development group members have been recorded or addressed.
Overall guideline assessment