TY - JOUR
T1 - Incorporating patients' views in guideline development: a systematic review of guidance documents
AU - Selva, Anna
AU - Sanabria, Andrea Juliana
AU - Pequeño, Sandra
AU - Zhang, Yuan
AU - Solà, Ivan
AU - Pardo-Hernandez, Héctor
AU - Selva, Clara
AU - Schünemann, Holger
AU - Alonso-Coello, Pablo
PY - 2017/8/1
Y1 - 2017/8/1
N2 - © 2017 Elsevier Inc. Objectives To assess how guidance documents for developing clinical guidelines (CGs) address the incorporation of patients' views in CGs. Study Design and Setting Systematic review to identify the methodology provided in guidance documents for incorporating (1) patients or representatives and (2) patients' views in the CG development process. The search was performed in 2017 in five databases. Two authors selected the studies, and data extraction was double-checked. Results We included guidance documents from 56 institutions. Of those, 40 (71.4%) recommended the inclusion of patients or their representatives, mainly for developing recommendations (14/40, 35.0%); reviewing the final version (13/40, 32.5%); formulating clinical questions (13/40, 32.5%); defining the scope and objectives (10/40, 25.0%); and dissemination and implementation (10/40, 25.0%). Concrete methods on how to incorporate patients were provided by 47.5% (19/40) of institutions. Forty (71.4%) institutions provided additional strategies to incorporate patients' views. The majority (30/40, 75.0%) suggested sources for obtaining these views (consultation with patients [24/40, 60.0%], using panels' judgment [10/40, 25.0%], conducting de novo research [10/40, 25.0%], or a systematic review [9/40, 22.5%]). Conclusion Although most institutions suggest incorporating patients and their views when developing CGs, little detail is provided on how to do this. Institutions should provide more guidance as this could have a positive impact in guideline applicability.
AB - © 2017 Elsevier Inc. Objectives To assess how guidance documents for developing clinical guidelines (CGs) address the incorporation of patients' views in CGs. Study Design and Setting Systematic review to identify the methodology provided in guidance documents for incorporating (1) patients or representatives and (2) patients' views in the CG development process. The search was performed in 2017 in five databases. Two authors selected the studies, and data extraction was double-checked. Results We included guidance documents from 56 institutions. Of those, 40 (71.4%) recommended the inclusion of patients or their representatives, mainly for developing recommendations (14/40, 35.0%); reviewing the final version (13/40, 32.5%); formulating clinical questions (13/40, 32.5%); defining the scope and objectives (10/40, 25.0%); and dissemination and implementation (10/40, 25.0%). Concrete methods on how to incorporate patients were provided by 47.5% (19/40) of institutions. Forty (71.4%) institutions provided additional strategies to incorporate patients' views. The majority (30/40, 75.0%) suggested sources for obtaining these views (consultation with patients [24/40, 60.0%], using panels' judgment [10/40, 25.0%], conducting de novo research [10/40, 25.0%], or a systematic review [9/40, 22.5%]). Conclusion Although most institutions suggest incorporating patients and their views when developing CGs, little detail is provided on how to do this. Institutions should provide more guidance as this could have a positive impact in guideline applicability.
KW - Evidence-based medicine
KW - Methods
KW - Patient participation
KW - Patient preference
KW - Patient views
KW - Practice guidelines
U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.05.018
DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.05.018
M3 - Article
SN - 0895-4356
VL - 88
SP - 102
EP - 112
JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
ER -