Comparing Models of Decision and Action for Guideline-Based Decision Support: a Case-Study Approach (Part 1 of 2) Running head: Comparing guideline decision and action models

We compared six computer-interpretable guideline models to understand their commonalities and differences. We sought to identify issues to be resolved if there were to be a consensus on a set of common components, while allowing research groups to continue their research on unique features. The models compared were Asbru, EON, GLIF, GUIDE, PRODIGY, and PROforma. Collaborators from each group that created these models represented, in their own formalism, portions of two guidelines: the American College of Physicians – American Society of Internal Medicine’s guideline for managing chronic cough, and the Sixth Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. We compared the guideline models according to eight dimensions. This paper describes our study methodology and compares the models according to four dimensions that capture the structure of guideline models: (1) the organization of guideline plans, (2) representation of goals/intentions, (3) representation of guideline actions, and (4) models of decision-making. A second paper compares the models in terms of their underlying data and concept models as well as their expression languages. Page 3 of 34 pages. Peleg et al., A comparison study of guideline models