To explore stakeholder experiences with implementing the living guideline (LG) development framework in oncology, and to identify barriers, facilitators and solutions to support its uptake and sustainability.

An exploratory sequential mixed methods design was used, beginning with qualitative semi-structured interviews with guideline development stakeholders, analysed thematically; and followed by a cross-sectional survey to quantitatively rate the importance of factors identified in phase one.

National and international oncology guideline development programmes using the LG development framework.

Stakeholders involved in LG development, including expert panel co-chairs, panel members, patient representatives, methodologists and administrative staff.

Nine stakeholders participated in qualitative interviews, and 45 completed the survey. Most participants were male (5/9:56% qualitative; 26/45:58% quantitative) and based in the US (7/9:78% and 29/45:64%, respectively). Overall, the results from both the qualitative and quantitative strand revealed seven themes (34 subthemes) as barriers and six themes (21 subthemes) as facilitators. Additionally, 9 themes were proposed as solutions. The most frequently reported barriers included evidence timeliness, interpretation and publication delays. Prominent facilitators included effective management, resource optimisation and panel engagement. Participants strongly endorsed investment in artificial intelligence enhanced tools to improve the speed and efficiency of evidence acquisition and review.

While the LG framework provides strong methodological guidance, its practical application presents notable challenges, particularly in resource demands and implementation logistics. Successful adoption requires adequate infrastructure, expertise and oversight. These findings highlight critical considerations for developers aiming to implement sustainable LG models in oncology and beyond.

Values and preferences are key determinants of optimal care, and variability in patient values and preferences often dictates differences in patient management. Clinicians’ views of patients’ values and preferences may differ across cultural aspects and stage of training, but the extent to which this is the case remains uncertain. One key value and preference issue is the trade-off between quantity and quality of life, and this issue is particularly prominent among patients with dementia. We therefore propose to investigate the extent to which physicians’ perceptions of optimal management for patients living with advanced dementia may differ due to cross-cultural factors and stage of medical training.

We will conduct a sequential explanatory mixed-methods study (QUAN -> qual). First, we will administer paper-based or electronic surveys during educational sessions, conferences and rounds to medical students, residents and physicians in ten countries, either in person or online. Following that, a qualitative inquiry, guided by the findings of the quantitative study and the principles of the interpretive description design, will inform an in-depth exploration of the predictive factors identified in the quantitative data analysis.

The Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board at McMaster University has approved this study (approval number 2024-17651). We will disseminate our findings in peer-reviewed publications and present results at conferences as oral and poster presentations.