Evidence-based practice guidelines in OHS: are they agree-able?

Carel Hulshof, John Hoenen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

32 Citations (Scopus)


The purpose of this study was to evaluate the acceptance, validity, reliability and feasibility of the AGREE (Appraisal of Guidelines and REsearch and Evaluation) instrument to assess the quality of evidence-based practice guidelines for occupational physicians. In total, 6 practice guidelines of the Netherlands Society of Occupational Medicine (NVAB) were appraised by 20 occupational health professionals and experts in guideline development or implementation. Although appraisers often disagreed on individual item scores, the internal consistency and interrater reliability for most domains was sufficient. The AGREE criteria were in general considered relevant and no major suggestions for additional items for use in the context of occupational health were brought up. The domain scores for the individual guidelines show a wide variety: 'applicability' had on average the lowest mean score (53%) while 'scope and purpose' had the highest one (87%). Low scores indicate where improvements are possible and necessary, e.g. by providing more information about the development. Key experts in occupational health report that AGREE is a relevant and easy to use instrument to evaluate quality aspects and the included criteria provide a good framework to develop or update evidence-based practice guidelines in the field of occupational health
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)26-31
JournalIndustrial health
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - 2007

Cite this