Patient and public involvement in clinical guidelines: international experiences and future perspectives

Boivin, Antoine; Currie, Kay C; Fervers, Béatrice; Gracia, Javier; James, Marian; Marshall, Catherine Handy; Sakala, Carol; Sänger, Sylvia; Strid, Judi; Thomas, Victoria; Weijden, Trudy van der; Grol, Richard; Burgers, Jako

doi:10.1136/qshc.2009.034835

Cited by 156 publications

(174 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

162

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Patient and public involvement is widely seen as an essential part of guideline development and implementation 48,49 and is often straightforward when guidelines are being developed for particular clinical conditions, such as cancer or chronic diseases, because well-established and highly motivated patient organizations and pressure groups usually exist. By contrast, it is particularly challenging to identify a means of patient and public involvement when developing guidelines on diagnostic tests, as highlighted in the guideline document from Germany.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guidelines for clinical use of CBCT: a review

Horner¹,

O’Malley²,

Taylor³

et al. 2015

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To identify guidelines on the clinical use of CBCT in dental and maxillofacial radiology, in particular selection criteria, to consider how they were produced, to appraise their quality objectively and to compare their recommendations. Methods: A literature search using MEDLINE (Ovid ® ) was undertaken prospectively from 1 January 2000 to identify published material classifiable as "guidelines" pertaining to the use of CBCT in dentistry. This was supplemented by searches on websites, an internet search engine, hand searching of theses and by information from personal contacts. Quality assessment of publications was performed using the AGREE II instrument. Publications were examined for areas of agreement and disagreement. Results: 26 publications were identified, 11 of which were specifically written to give guidelines on the clinical use of CBCT and contained sections on selection criteria. The remainder were a heterogeneous mixture of publications that included guidelines relating to CBCT. Two had used a formal evidence-based approach for guideline development and two used consensus methods. The quality of publications was frequently low as assessed using AGREE II, with many lacking evidence of adequate methodology. There was broad agreement between publications on clinical use, apart from treatment planning, in implant dentistry. Conclusions: Reporting of guideline development is often poorly presented. Guideline development panels should aim to perform and report their work using the AGREE II instrument as a template to raise standards and avoid the risk of suspicions of bias.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guidelines for clinical use of CBCT: a review

Horner¹,

O’Malley²,

Taylor³

et al. 2015

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sometimes it feels that you put a point of view from experience and they come back at you and say 'That as observed at an international guideline development workshop from 14 countries on service user involvement (Boivin, Currie et al 2010). Organisations such as professional and third sector bodies may be concerned with social accountability whereas individuals are more inclined to promote their rights as individuals, to autonomy and choice.…”

Section: Influences On the Translation Of Evidence To Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Besides the active patient involvement in guideline development groups (GDGs) fostered in NICE guidelines in the UK, there exists today a wide variety of guideline programmes across the world, along with an international cooperative initiative, the Guideline International Network Patient and Public Involvement Working Group (GIN-Public), and plans for international cooperation to develop priorities for research and collaboration on patient and public involvement (PPIP) (Boivin, Currie et al 2010). Internationally, several studies have sought to explore the mechanisms, value and impact of patient and public involvement more broadly.…”

Section: Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Service user involvement in clinical guideline development and implementation: Learning from mental health service users in the UK

Harding

Pettinari

Brown

et al. 2011

International Review of Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Guideline International Network Patient and Public Involvement Working Group collaboration priorities include the development of recruitment methods, training and support strategies, information material and tools, and glossaries of technical terms used in CPGs. 8 The US Cochrane Center and Consumers United for Evidence-Based Medicine have created a web-based course, "Understanding Evidence-based Healthcare: A Foundation for Action," through a grant from AHRQ (http://us.cochrane.org/ understanding-evidence-based-healthcare-foundation-action). 9 This course is divided into 6 modules: INTRO (what is evidence-based health care and why is it important), ASK (importance of research questions in evidence-based health care), ALIGN (research design, bias, and LOE), ACQUIRE (assessing harms and benefits), APPRAISE (understanding healthcare statistics), and APPLY (critical appraisal and making better decisions for evidence-based care; determining causality).…”

Section: What Form Of Training Will Be Required For Patient Representmentioning

confidence: 99%

ACCF/AHA Clinical Practice Guideline Methodology Summit Report

Antman¹,

Arnett²,

Bertolet³

et al. 2013

Circulation

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

. Expert peer review of AHA Scientific Statements is conducted by the AHA Office of Science Operations. For more on AHA statements and guidelines development, visit http://my.americanheart.org/statements and select the "Policies and Development" link.Permissions: Multiple copies, modification, alteration, enhancement, and/or distribution of this document are not permitted without the express permission of theAmericanHeartAssociation.Instructionsforobtainingpermissionarelocatedathttp://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/General/Copyright-Permission-Guidelines_ UCM_300404_Article.jsp. A link to the "Copyright Permissions Request Form" appears on the right side of the page Executive Summary BackgroundThe American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) and the American Heart Association (AHA) have jointly engaged in the development of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for nearly 3 decades, based on the shared vision of their responsibility to provide guidance to cardiovascular healthcare professionals and the patients they serve by translating the best available evidence into clinical practice.The ACCF/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Task Force) oversees and directs the CPG development process and methodology that have been the foundation of our documents and responsible for their widespread recognition. In brief, once a topic is selected for a new, revised, or updated CPG, selected organizations and professional societies with similar interests and expertise are invited to participate as partners or collaborators, with the overall ACCF/AHA policy of being inclusive and collaborative. Next, a guideline writing committee (GWC) chair is selected by the Task Force, and together with the chair, potential GWC members are identified, based on a detailed and specific relationship with industry and other entities (RWI) policy stating that the chair and the majority of GWC members must have no relevant RWI. Once formed, the GWC outlines the content of the document, performs a detailed and specific evidence acquisition and review, drafts recommendations with limited preliminary text, and attends a consensus conference with GWC members of related CPGs where recommendations are vetted and reconciled across existing guidelines. After the conference, the document is finalized. Every recommendation is voted on by each GWC member with appropriate recusal based on relevant RWI. The finished document then undergoes extensive peer review and response, and any recommendation that is changed is voted on again by each GWC member. The final document is reviewed, potentially revised and approved by the Task Force, and sent to the ACCF Board of Trustees, the AHA Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee, and partnering or collaborating organizations for final approval. After this very thorough and robust process, the CPG has essentially been vetted throughout the academic and clinical community and is jointly published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and Circulation. Once published, it serves as official policy of bot...

show abstract

Patient and public involvement in clinical guidelines: international experiences and future perspectives

Cited by 156 publications

References 34 publications

Guidelines for clinical use of CBCT: a review

Guidelines for clinical use of CBCT: a review

Service user involvement in clinical guideline development and implementation: Learning from mental health service users in the UK

ACCF/AHA Clinical Practice Guideline Methodology Summit Report

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About