Barriers and facilitators in developing patient versions of clinical practice guidelines - qualitative interviews on experiences of international guideline producers

Author:

Meyer Nora1,Hauprich Julia1,Breuing Jessica1,Hellbrecht Irma1,Wahlen Sarah1,Könsgen Nadja1,Bühn Stefanie1,Becker Monika1,Blödt Susanne2,Carl Günther3,Follmann Markus4,Frenz Stefanie5,Langer Thomas4,Nothacker Monika2,Schaefer Corinna6,Pieper Dawid7

Affiliation:

1. Institute for Research in Operative Medicine (IFOM), Witten / Herdecke University, Cologne

2. Institute for Medical Knowledge Management c/o Philipps University Marburg, Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany, Marburg / Berlin

3. German Prostate Cancer Support Group, Bonn

4. Office of the German Guideline Program in Oncology (GGPO), c/o German Cancer Society, Berlin,

5. Frauenselbsthilfe Krebs Bundesverband, Bonn

6. German Agency for Quality in Medicine, Berlin

7. Institute for Health Services and Health System Research (IVGF), Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Rüdersdorf bei Berlin

Abstract

Abstract Background Several guideline organizations produce patient versions of clinical practice guidelines (PVGs) which translate recommendations into simple language. A former study of our working group revealed that few guideline organizations publish their methods used to develop PVGs. Clear definitions of PVGs do not prevail and their purposes often remain unclear. We aimed to explore experts’ perspectives on developing, disseminating and implementing PVGs to discuss and incorporate these experiences when consenting on methodological guidance and further improving PVGs. Methods We conducted 17 semi-structured telephone interviews with international experts working with PVGs from September 2021 through January 2022. We conducted the interviews in English or German, they were recorded and transcribed verbatim. We utilized Mayring’s qualitative content analysis with MAXQDA software to analyze the data. Results A total of 19 participants from 16 different organizations and 8 different countries participated. Most were female (16/19) and their experience in working with PVGs ranged from 1 to 20 years. All follow methodological standards when developing PVGs, but the extent of these standards and their public accessibility differs. Aims and target groups of PVGs vary between organizations. Facilitators for developing PVGs are working with a multidisciplinary team, financial resources, consultation processes and a high-quality underlying CPG. Facilitators for disseminating and implementing PVGs are using various strategies. Barriers, on the other hand, are the lack of these factors. All participants mentioned patient involvement as a key aspect in PVG development. Conclusion The steps in the PVG development process are largely similar across the countries. Focus is placed on the involvement of patients in the development process, although the extent of participation varies. The experts collectively attribute great importance to PVGs overall, but in order to constantly adapt to medical progress and changing conditions, the focus in the future must be more on formats like living guidelines. Although there are different views on the mandatory development of PVGs, there is a consistent call for more transparency regarding the methodology used for PVGs.

Publisher

Research Square Platform LLC

Reference22 articles.

1. Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Standards for Developing Trustworthy Clinical Practice Guidelines. In: Graham R, Mancher M, Wolman DM, Greenfield S, Steinberg E, editors. Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press; 2011.

2. Board of Trustees of the Guidelines International Network. Guidelines International Network: Toward International Standards for Clinical Practice Guidelines;Qaseem A;Ann Intern Med,2012

3. Patient and public attitudes to and awareness of clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review with thematic and narrative syntheses;Loudon K;BMC Health Serv Res,2014

4. Guidelines International Network (GIN). GIN Public Toolkit. Patient and public involvement in guidelines [Internet]. https://g-i-n.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Toolkit-combined.pdf. [cited 2023 Mar 15]. Available from: https://g-i-n.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Toolkit-combined.pdf.

5. Developing quality criteria for patient-directed knowledge tools related to clinical practice guidelines. A development and consensus study;Weijden T;Health Expect,2019

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3