We found that when developing guidelines, none of the committees systematically focused on sex-related factors that might be relevant to the way in which evidence is identified, appraised, or described. A number of recommendations were made with the aim to facilitate greater attention to sex-related factors in the current methods of guideline development.
Objectives Researchers and clinicians tend to focus on one pelvic floor symptom (PFS) at the time. However, the pelvic floor acts as one functional unit, increasing the likelihood of concurrent PFS in patients with pelvic floor dysfunction. There is also a paucity of literature on the prevalence of concomitant PFS, especially in males. Therefore, we explored the occurrence of concomitant PFS in community‐dwelling males and females. Materials and Methods This prospective observational population‐based cohort study included males and females aged ≥16 years from a single Dutch municipality. Participants completed validated questionnaires on lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), defecation problems, sexual dysfunction, pelvic pain, and pelvic organ prolapse. Medical general practitioner records were examined. Furthermore, a randomly selected group of non‐responders aged <80 years received a short questionnaire, to study response bias. Results We invited 11 724 people, among which 839 females and 566 males completed the questionnaires. Of the female participants, 286 (34.1%) reported no PFS, and 251 (29.9%) reported two or more PFS. The most prevalent PFS clusters in females were sexual dysfunction and pelvic pain, sexual dysfunction and defecation problems, LUTS and defecation problems, and LUTS, defecation problems, and pelvic pain. Of the male participants, 212 (37.5%) reported no PFS, and 191 (33.7%) reported two or more PFS. The most prevalent clusters in males were sexual dysfunction and LUTS, defecation problems and LUTS, and sexual dysfunction, LUTS, and defecation problems. Conclusion A considerable overlap existed between PFS, with differences in PFS clusters between females and males. Of note, females reported pelvic pain more than males. We conclude that healthcare providers should address all PFS in males and females.
Background: Several funding organizations using different agendas support research in general practice. Topic selection and prioritization are often not coordinated, which may lead to duplication and research waste. Objectives: To develop systematically a national research agenda for general practice involving general practitioners, researchers, patients and other relevant stakeholders in healthcare. Methods: We reviewed knowledge gaps from 90 Dutch general practice guidelines and formulated research questions based on these gaps. In addition, we asked 96 healthcare stakeholders to add research questions relevant for general practice. All research questions were prioritized by practising general practitioners in an online survey ( n = 232) and by participants of an invitational conference including general practitioners ( n = 48) and representatives of other stakeholders in healthcare ( n = 16), e.g. patient organizations and medical specialists. Results: We identified 787 research questions. These were categorized in two ways: according to the chapters of the International Classification for Primary Care (ICPC) and in 12 themes such as common conditions, person-centred care and patient education, collaboration and organization of care. The prioritizing procedure resulted in top 10 lists of research questions for each ICPC chapter and each theme. Conclusion: The process resulted in a widely supported National Research Agenda for General Practice. We encourage both researchers and funding organizations to use this agenda to focus their research on the most relevant issues in general practice and to generate new evidence for the next generation of guidelines and the future of general practice.
BackgroundDutch guideline-developing organizations do not focus systematically on differences between men and women when developing guidelines, even though there is increasing evidence that being male or female may have an effect on health and health outcomes. In collaboration with two prominent Dutch guideline-developing organizations, we designed a training course to encourage systematic attention to sex differences in guideline development procedures.MethodsThe course is targeted towards guideline developers. Its aims are to improve awareness concerning the relevance of considering sex differences in the guideline development process, as well as the competence and skills necessary for putting this into practice. The design and teaching methods of the course are based on adult learning styles and principles of changing provider behaviour. It was adjusted to the working methods of guideline organizations. The course was taught to, and evaluated by, a group of staff members from two guideline organizations in the Netherlands.ResultsThe course consists of five modules, each of which corresponds to a key step in the guideline development process. The participants rated the training course positively on content, programme, and trainers. Their written comments suggest that the course met its objectives.ConclusionThe training course is the first to address sex differences in guideline development. Results from the pilot test suggest that the course achieved its objectives. Because its modules and teaching methods of the course are widely transferable, the course could be useful for many organizations that are involved in developing guidelines. Follow-up studies are needed to assess the long-term effect of the course on the actions of guideline developers and its utility in other settings.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.