The DOI matches its Crossref record; its reference list is not available.
Development of Evidenced-Based Guidelines for PCOS and Implications for Community Health
Abstract
Despite the prevalence and health implications of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), key evidence practice gaps exist including delayed diagnosis, inconsistent management, inadequate support for lifestyle change, and limited attention to psychological and metabolic features. Key contributors to these gaps include a lack of awareness and absence of evidence-based guidelines (EBGs) to inform consumers and health professionals. Intervention was needed to improve awareness, patient experience, early diagnosis, self-management, complication screening, and treatment across reproductive, metabolic, and psychological features driving the authors to establish a national PCOS Alliance. All relevant stakeholders including consumers, researchers, and clinicians codeveloped a vision and based on compellingly need and lobbying, the Australian government funded development of EBGs meeting international standards. To maximize impact, a national dissemination and implementation program was delivered with ongoing evaluation. Activities were recognized by the U.S. National Institute of Health and are being scaled up with the World Health Organization.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The refined questionnaire used in this study was informed by results from the previous study, national forums with women, clinicians, and academics, and experiences of international experts.
“The results from the previous study, national forums with women, clinicians, and academics (20), and experiences of international experts informed the refined questionnaire used here.”
From Delayed Diagnosis and a Lack of Information Associated With Dissatisfaction in Women With Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (2016) · cites this paper as [20]
Citations
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
Cited by 31
Metadata
- Authors
- Misso, M., Boyle, J., Norman, R., & Teede, H.
- Affiliations
- Monash University (AU)
- The University of Adelaide (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Teede, Helena
- Venue
- Seminars in Reproductive Medicine
- Publisher
- Georg Thieme Verlag KG
- Published
- 2014-04-08
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 03
- Pages
- 230-240
- ISSN
- 1526-4564 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-8004
- OpenAlex
- W2317028471
- Cited by
- 31
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 3.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Seminars in Reproductive Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Ovarian function and disorders
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Endometriosis Research and Treatment
- Keywords
- polycystic ovary syndrome, evidence-based clinical guidelines, guideline development, PCOS diagnosis, PCOS management, lifestyle intervention, metabolic complications, patient awareness, stakeholder co-development, dissemination and implementation, community health
- MeSH terms
- Australia, Female, Humans, Polycystic Ovary Syndrome, Self Care, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Evidence-Based Medicine
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review