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.

Many clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) claim to use Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, but its implementation varies. This suggests that CPG developers, methodologists and users would benefit from an instrument to evaluate the extent to which CPGs adhere to GRADE approach. Such a structured instrument is currently unavailable. Accordingly, this study will develop an evaluation instrument for assessing guideline adherence to the GRADE approach, which we have named ‘GRADE-Check’. The goal is to target items to which CPGs fail to adhere and that potentially have serious consequences resulting in inaccuracies in certainty of evidence and inappropriate direction or strength of recommendations, thereby discriminating across CPGs in issues of importance.

The panel will include up to 25 individuals with specific knowledge and expertise, including experienced authors, educators and methodologists on CPGs methodology and GRADE approach from relevant organisations. The instrument will focus on the key elements of GRADE, aiming for clarity for GRADE experts and non-GRADE experts to apply. The development process for GRADE-Check will consist of the following five phases: (1) recruitment of a panel of GRADE experts; (2) development of objectives and scope for the development of GRADE-Check and criteria for item selection; (3) generation of candidate items through a literature review and panel consultation; (4) panellist discussion to construct the initial draft and extended explanation manual and (5) user testing.

This study has been approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University (no. (2025047K)). Our research findings will be published in peer-reviewed journal articles and presented at academic conferences. Additionally, the dissemination plan will include considerations for the development of implementation manuals, a dedicated project website and training tools.