Plain English summaryThe 2011 standards for trustworthy development of healthcare guidelines published by the United States-based Institute of Medicine recommend that guideline developers involve patients and public representatives in the development process. The standards recommend that (1) patients and the public be actively involved as members on guideline development panels and (2) guideline developers seek patient and public input during review of the draft guideline. In this study, researchers reviewed the patient and public involvement strategies of guideline developers in the United States by looking at websites and guideline development practices. Of 101 organizations reviewed, only 8% require patient and public involvement on guideline development groups; 15% sometimes require it or describe it as optional. Only 24% of guideline developers always post draft guidelines for public comment. Thirteen percent of guideline developers ask patients or patient organizations to review draft guidelines at least some of the time. Only 20% of guideline developers create patient-targeted guideline products (e.g. patient summaries of guidelines). These low numbers show that there is a substantial gap between standards for patient and public involvement in guideline development and what is actually happening. This is a missed opportunity, as patient and public contributions to guideline development include assessing guideline priorities, introducing new topics, identifying important populations and outcomes, suggesting whether findings are meaningful, prompting holistic approaches to care, assessing how recommendations interact with patient values, and writing plain-language guideline versions. Guideline developers must commit to prioritizing patient and public involvement as one part of trustworthy guideline development.AbstractBackgroundThe United States-based Institute of Medicine 2011 standards for trustworthy clinical practice guideline development recommended patient and public involvement in guideline development via participation by patients and public representatives on guideline development groups and via external review and public comment strategies. Guideline developer compliance with these standards has not been assessed. This study aimed to identify the frequency with which United States guideline developers are employing participation, consultation, and communication patient and public involvement strategies.MethodsTwo reviewers independently extracted current patient and public involvement strategies of independent guideline developers, either (1) an organizational member of the Guidelines-International-Network North America and/or (2) having ≥2 guidelines in the National Guideline Clearinghouse between March 2011 and November 2015. Publicly available information was extracted from guideline developers’ websites, methodology manuals, and guidelines between November 2015 and December 2016. Disagreements were resolved by discussion.ResultsOf 101 organizations meeting inclusion criteria, only 8% require pa...

No abstract

Purpose Breast cancer continues to be the most prevalent cancer affecting women. Many reconstructive options exist after oncologic resection. Breast reconstruction can have a lasting impact on many areas of the patient's life, and therefore, a high consideration for patient satisfaction is crucial. Patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) provide an important tool in the evaluation of different surgical methodologies. The aim of this comprehensive systematic review is to look at various surgical modalities in breast reconstruction as they relate to patient satisfaction. Methods A PubMed PRISMA search was performed. Criteria for inclusion included nipple‐sparing or skin‐sparing mastectomy with autologous or implant‐based reconstruction, level 2 volume displacement or volume replacement oncoplastic surgery, and measurement of patient‐reported outcomes using the BREAST‐Q or other validated PROMs. From the data set, weighted proportions were generated and analyzed using the Kruskal‐Wallis rank sum test and a post hoc Dunn's test. Results After obtaining 254 full text copies, 43 articles met inclusion criteria and were included. Analysis of BREAST‐Q data showed oncoplastic breast surgery was significantly preferred over mastectomy regardless of the type of reconstruction. Nipple‐sparing was significantly preferred over skin‐sparing mastectomy, autologous reconstruction was significantly preferred over implant‐based reconstruction, and prepectoral implant placement was preferred over subpectoral implant placement. Validated PROMs other than BREAST‐Q showed similar trends in all but type of mastectomy. Conclusions In this comprehensive systematic review, oncoplastic surgery showed the most favorable PROMs when compared to other reconstructive modalities. Autologous was preferred over implant‐based reconstruction, and prepectoral was preferred over subpectoral implant placement.

No abstract