Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research
Erschienen in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 2/2018

01.04.2018 | Practical Application

Practical Considerations for Using Online Methods to Engage Patients in Guideline Development

verfasst von: Sean Grant, Glen S. Hazlewood, Holly L. Peay, Ann Lucas, Ian Coulter, Arlene Fink, Dmitry Khodyakov

Erschienen in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research | Ausgabe 2/2018

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have been widely used in healthcare policy, practice, and for suggesting future research. As patients increasingly become involved in CPG development to produce patient-centered recommendations, more research is needed on methods to engage patients, particularly methods allowing for scalable engagement of large, diverse, and geographically distributed groups of patients. In this article, we discuss practical considerations for using online methods to engage patients in CPG development. To inform this discussion, we conducted a rapid, systematic review of literature on patient involvement in CPG development and used qualitative evidence synthesis techniques to make inferences about potential advantages and challenges of using online methods to engage patients in this context. We identified 79 articles containing information about involving patients in CPG development. Potential advantages include the ability of online methods to facilitate greater openness and honesty by patients, as well as to reflect the diversity of patient views, which in turn further improve the utility of CPGs. Potential challenges of using online methods may include the extra skill, time, and certain types of resources that may be needed for patient engagement, as well as the difficulty engaging specific patient populations. However, these challenges are mitigated by growing calls for patient engagement as normative for CPG development in addition to patients’ increasing familiarity with online technologies. These practical considerations should be examined empirically as guideline development groups further explore the appropriateness of using online methods to engage patients across different stages of CPG development.
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Literatur
1.
Institute of Medicine. Clinical practice guidelines we can trust. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2011.
2.
Greenfield S. Clinical practice guidelines: expanded use and misuse. JAMA. 2017;317(6):594–5.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Kung J, Miller RR, Mackowiak PA. Failure of clinical practice guidelines to meet institute of medicine standards: two more decades of little, if any, progress. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(21):1628–33.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Bennett WL, Robbins CW, Bayliss EA, Wilson R, Tabano H, Mularski RA, et al. Engaging stakeholders to inform clinical practice guidelines that address multiple chronic conditions. J Gen Intern Med. 2017;32(8):883–90.CrossRefPubMed
5.
6.
Rashid A, Thomas V, Shaw T, Leng G. Patient and public involvement in the development of healthcare guidance: an overview of current methods and future challenges. The Patient. 2017;10(3):277–82.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Boivin A, Currie K, Fervers B, Gracia J, James M, Marshall C, et al. Patient and public involvement in clinical guidelines: international experiences and future perspectives. Qual Saf Health Care. 2010;19(5):1–4.
8.
Mockford C, Staniszewska S, Griffiths F, Herron-Marx S. The impact of patient and public involvement on UK NHS health care: a systematic review. Int J Qual Health Care. 2012;24:28–38.CrossRefPubMed
9.
World Health Organization. WHO handbook for guideline development. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2012.
10.
Qaseem A, Snow V, Owens DK, Shekelle P. The development of clinical practice guidelines and guidance statements of the American College of Physicians: summary of methods. Ann Intern Med. 2010;153(3):194–9.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Gronseth GS, Woodroffe LM, Getchius TSD. Clinical practice guideline process manual. St. Paul: American Academy of Neurology; 2011.
12.
Armstrong MJ, Rueda JD, Gronseth GS, Mullins CD. Framework for enhancing clinical practice guidelines through continuous patient engagement. Health Expect. 2017;20(1):3–10.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Kelson M. Patient involvement in clinical guideline development—where are we now? J Clin Gov. 2001;9:169–74.
14.
Hunt LM, Arar NH. An analytical framework for contrasting patient and provider views of the process of chronic disease management. Med Anthropol Q. 2001;15(3):347–67.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Khodyakov D, Grant S, Barber C, Marshall D, Esdaile J, Lacaille D. Acceptability of an online modified-Delphi panel approach for developing health services performance measures: results from three panels on arthritis research. J Eval Clin Pract. 2017;23(2):354–60.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Khodyakov D, Grant S, Meeker D, Booth M, Pacheco-Santivanez N, Kim KK. Comparative analysis of stakeholder experiences with an online approach to prioritizing patient-centered research topics. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017;24(3):537–43.PubMed
17.
Khodyakov D, Kinnett K, Grant S, Lucas A, Martin A, Denger B, et al. Engaging patients and caregivers managing rare diseases to improve the methods of clinical guideline development. JMIR Res Protoc. 2017;6(4):e57.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Fitch K, Bernstein SJ, Aguilar MD, Burnand B, LaCalle JR, Lazaro P, et al. The RAND/UCLA appropriateness method user’s manual. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation; 2001.
19.
Dalal S, Khodyakov D, Srinivasan R, Straus S, Adams J. ExpertLens: a system for eliciting opinions from a large pool of non-collocated experts with diverse knowledge. Technol Forecast Soc Chang. 2011;78(8):1426–44.CrossRef
20.
21.
Varker T, Forbes D, Dell L, Weston A, Merlin T, Hodson S, et al. Rapid evidence assessment: increasing the transparency of an emerging methodology. J Eval Clin Pract. 2015;21(6):1199–204.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Eder M, Feightner A, Webber E, Guirguis-Blake J, Whitlock EP. Developing and selecting topic nominations for systematic reviews. Methods guide for effectiveness and comparative effectiveness reviews. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2014. p. 32–53.
23.
Kelly SE, Moher D, Clifford TJ. Defining rapid reviews: a modified Delphi consensus approach. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2016;32(4):265–75.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Haby MM, Chapman E, Clark R, Barreto J, Reveiz L, Lavis JN. What are the best methodologies for rapid reviews of the research evidence for evidence-informed decision making in health policy and practice: a rapid review. Health Res Policy Syst. 2016;14:83.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Hannes K, Macaitis K. A move to more systematic and transparent approaches in qualitative evidence synthesis: update on a review of published papers. Qual Res. 2012;12(4):402–42.CrossRef
26.
O’Brien BC, Harris IB, Beckman TJ, Reed DA, Cook DA. Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations. Acad Med. 2014;89(9):1245–51.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Tong A, Flemming K, McInnes E, Oliver S, Craig J. Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12(1):181.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. The Prisma Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
30.
Barham L. Public and patient involvement at the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. The Patient. 2011;4(1):1–10.CrossRefPubMed
31.
de Wit MP, Berlo SE, Aanerud GJ, Aletaha D, Bijlsma JW, Croucher L, et al. European League Against Rheumatism recommendations for the inclusion of patient representatives in scientific projects. Ann Rheum Dis. 2011;70(5):722–6.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Serrano-Aguilar P, del Mar Trujillo-Martin M, de la Rosa AP, Cuellar-Pompa L, Saavedra-Medina H, Linertova R, et al. Patient participation in a clinical guideline development for systemic lupus erythematosus. Patient Educ Couns. 2015;98(9):1156–63.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Den Breejen EM, Hilbink MA, Nelen WL, Wiersma TJ, Burgers JS, Kremer JA, et al. A patient-centered network approach to multidisciplinary-guideline development: a process evaluation. Implement Sci. 2014;9(1):68.CrossRef
34.
Boivin A, Green J, van der Meulen J, Légaré F, Nolte E. Why consider patients’ preferences?: A discourse analysis of clinical practice guideline developers. Med Care. 2009;47(8):908–15.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Kelson M, Akl EA, Bastian H, Cluzeau F, Curtis JR, Guyatt G, et al. Integrating values and consumer involvement in guidelines with the patient at the center: article 8 in Integrating and coordinating efforts in COPD guideline development. An official ATS/ERS workshop report. Proc Am Thorac Soc. 2012;9(5):262–8.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Bancos I, Cheng T, Prokop LJ, Montori VM, Murad MH. Endocrine clinical practice guidelines in North America. A systematic assessment of quality. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(5):520–5.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Atkins D, Perez-Padilla R, MacNee W, Buist AS, Cruz AA. Priority setting in guideline development: article 2 in integrating and coordinating efforts in COPD guideline development. An official ATS/ERS workshop report. Proc Am Thorac Soc. 2012;9(5):225–8.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Boelens PG, Taylor C, Henning G, Marang-van de Mheen PJ, Espin E, Wiggers T, et al. Involving patients in a multidisciplinary European consensus process and in the development of a ‘patient summary of the consensus document for colon and rectal cancer care’. The Patient. 2014;7(3):261–70.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Battista RN, Hodge MJ. Setting priorities and selecting topics for clinical practice guidelines. CMAJ. 1995;153:1233–7.PubMedPubMedCentral
40.
Pell I, Dowie J, Clarke A, Kennedy A, Bhavnani V. Development and preliminary evaluation of a clinical guidance programme for the decision about prophylactic oophorectomy in women undergoing a hysterectomy. Qual Saf Health Care. 2002;11(1):32–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
41.
Dagenais S, Tricco AC, Haldeman S. Synthesis of recommendations for the assessment and management of low back pain from recent clinical practice guidelines. Spine J. 2010;10:514–29.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Eccles MP, Grimshaw JM, Shekelle P, Schunemann HJ, Woolf S. Developing clinical practice guidelines: target audiences, identifying topics for guidelines, guideline group composition and functioning and conflicts of interest. Implement Sci. 2012;7:60.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
43.
Cluzeau F, Wedzicha JA, Kelson M, Corn J, Kunz R, Walsh J, et al. Stakeholder involvement: how to do it right: article 9 in Integrating and coordinating efforts in COPD guideline development. An official ATS/ERS workshop report. Proc Am Thorac Soc. 2012;9(5):269–73.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Tong A, Lopez-Vargas P, Howell M, Phoon R, Johnson D, Campbell D, et al. Consumer involvement in topic and outcome selection in the development of clinical practice guidelines. Health Expect. 2012;15(4):410–23.CrossRefPubMed
45.
MacLean S, Mulla S, Akl EA, Jankowski M, Vandvik PO, Ebrahim S, et al. Patient values and preferences in decision making for antithrombotic therapy: a systematic review. Chest. 2012;141:e1S–23S.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
46.
den Breejen EM, Nelen WL, Knijnenburg JM, Burgers JS, Hermens RP, Kremer JA. Feasibility of a wiki as a participatory tool for patients in clinical guideline development. J Med Internet Res. 2012;14(5):e138.CrossRef
47.
Fraenkel L, Miller AS, Clayton K, Crow-Hercher R, Hazel S, Johnson B, et al. When patients write the guidelines: patient panel recommendations for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res. 2016;68(1):26–35.CrossRef
48.
G-I-N Public Working Group. G-I-N Public Toolkit: patient and public involvement in guidelines. Pitlochry: Guidelines International Network; 2015.
49.
Pittens CA, Vonk Noordegraaf A, Veen SC, Anema JR, Huirne JA, Broerse JE. The involvement of gynaecological patients in the development of a clinical guideline for resumption of (work) activities in the Netherlands. Health Expect. 2015;18(5):1397–412.CrossRefPubMed
50.
Lamontagne ME, Perreault K, Gagnon MP. Evaluation of the acceptability, feasibility and effectiveness of two methods of involving patients with disability in developing clinical guidelines: study protocol of a randomized pragmatic pilot trial. Trials. 2014;15(1):118.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
51.
den Breejen EME, Nelen WLDM, Schol SFE, Kremer JAM, Hermens RPMG. Development of guideline-based indicators for patient-centredness in fertility care: what patients add. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(4):987–96.CrossRef
52.
Cottrell E, Whitlock E, Kato E, Uhl S, Belinson S, Chang C. Defining the benefits of stakeholder engagement in systematic reviews. Research White Paper. (Prepared by the Scientific Resource Center under Contract No. 290-2012-00004-C.) AHRQ Publication No. 14-EHC006-EF. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2014.
53.
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Vist GE, Liberati A, et al. Rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations: going from evidence to recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336(7652):1049.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
54.
Peay HL, Hollin I, Fischer R, Bridges JFB. A community-engaged approach to quantifying caregiver preferences for the benefits and risks of emerging therapies for Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Clin Ther. 2014;36:624–37.CrossRefPubMed
55.
Peay HL, Scharff H, Tibben A, Wilfond B, Bowie J, Johnson J, et al. Watching time tick by…: decision making for Duchenne muscular dystrophy trials. Contemp Clin Trials. 2016;46:1–6.CrossRefPubMed
56.
Hollin IL, Young C, Hanson C, Bridges JFP, Peay H. Developing a patient-centered benefit-risk survey: a community-engaged process. Value in Health. 2016;19(6):751–7.CrossRefPubMed
57.
Hollin IL, Peay HL, Apkon SD, Bridges JFP. Patient-centered benefit-risk assessment in Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Muscle Nerve. 2017;55(5):626–34.CrossRefPubMed
58.
Hollin IL, Peay HL, Bridges JF. Caregiver preferences for emerging duchenne muscular dystrophy treatments: a comparison of best-worst scaling and conjoint analysis. Patient. 2015;8(1):19–27.CrossRefPubMed
59.
Boivin A, Lehoux P, Burgers J, Grol R. What are the key ingredients for effective public involvement in health care improvement and policy decisions? A randomized trial process evaluation. Milbank Quart. 2014;92(2):319–50.CrossRef
60.
Brown KA, Hermoso M, Timotijevic L, Barnett J, Lillegaard ITL, Řehůřková I, et al. Consumer involvement in dietary guideline development: opinions from European stakeholders. Public Health Nutr. 2013;16(5):769–76.CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Practical Considerations for Using Online Methods to Engage Patients in Guideline Development
verfasst von
Sean Grant
Glen S. Hazlewood
Holly L. Peay
Ann Lucas
Ian Coulter
Arlene Fink
Dmitry Khodyakov
Publikationsdatum
01.04.2018
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research / Ausgabe 2/2018
Print ISSN: 1178-1653
Elektronische ISSN: 1178-1661
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-017-0280-6

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2018

The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 2/2018 Zur Ausgabe

Current Opinion

Symptom Monitoring in Pediatric Oncology Using Patient-Reported Outcomes: Why, How, and Where Next

Practical Application

Scale Heterogeneity in Healthcare Discrete Choice Experiments: A Primer

Commentary

The Primacy of Patient-Centered Outcomes in Tracheostomy Care

Original Research Article

Light Chain (AL) Amyloidosis: The Journey to Diagnosis

Systematic Review

A Systematic Review of Patient and Caregiver Experiences with a Tracheostomy

Original Research Article

Assessing the Use of a Feedback Module to Model EQ-5D-5L Health States Values in Hong Kong