Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Patient and public involvement in the development and implementation of clinical practice guidelines: what do developers say?

France Légaré, Antoine Boivin, Susie Gagnon, Hubert Robitaille

Abstract


Rationale, aims and objectives: Two factors believed to improve clinical outcomes are patient involvement and the use of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). This study aimed to improve strategies for increasing the involvement of patients by asking groups involved in CPG development to identify the various characteristics of programs they use for involving patients (PPIPs, or patient and public involvement programs) and what barriers and facilitators they perceive to this involvement.

Method: Embedded within a systematic review aimed at identifying existing PPIPs in CPG development and implementation, we conducted semi-structured interviews with representatives of provincial, national and international organizations that have developed and/or implemented a CPG using a PPIP. Ten key informants (response rate of 71%) consented to participate. We performed thematic analyses on verbatim transcribed interviews.

Results: Eleven key informants across 6 countries (response rate of 78%) consented to participate. The main barriers identified were recruitment difficulties, concerns with representativeness, participants’ lack of familiarity with scientific content and lack of financial resources. Key facilitators were training, provision of supporting documents, support staff, financial assistance for participants, their professional background and a high level of interest. Socio-political factors such as networks as well as government policy also had a major influence on patient and public participation.

Conclusion: Our results identify and categorize issues that concern many CPG organizations about patient and public involvement and pave the way for the adoption of strategies that will improve patient and public participation in developing and implementing CPGs as healthcare moves towards a more person-centered model.


Keywords


Clinical practice guidelines, decision-making, patient and public involvement, quality of care, shared decision-making

Full Text:

PDF

References


Field, M.J. & Lohr, K.N. (1990). Clinical Practice Guidelines: Directions for a New Program. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Woolf, S.H., Grol, R., Hutchinson, A., Eccles, M. & Grimshaw J. (1999). Clinical guidelines: Potential benefits, limitations, and harms of clinical guidelines. British Medical Journal 318 (7182) 527-530.

Grimshaw, J.M., Thomas, R.E., MacLennan, G., Fraser, C., Ramsay, C.R., Vale, L., Whitty, P., Eccles, M.P., Matowe, L., Shirran, L., Wensing, M., Dijkstra, R. & Donaldson, C. (2004). Effectiveness and efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies. Health Technology Assessment 8 (6) 1-72.

Cabana, M.D., Rand, C.S., Powe, N.R., Wu, A.W., Wilson, M.H., Abboud, P-A.C. & Rubin, H.R. (1999). Why Don't Physicians Follow Clinical Practice Guidelines?: A Framework for Improvement. Journal of American Medical Association 282 (15) 1458-1465.

Grol, R., Dalhuijsen, J., Thomas, S., Veld, C., Rutten, G. & Mokkink, H. (1998). Attributes of clinical guidelines that influence use of guidelines in general practice: observational study. British Medical Journal 317 (7162) 858-861.

Boivin, A., Green, J., van der Meulen, J., Legare, F. & Nolte, E. (2009). Why consider patients' preferences? A discourse analysis of clinical practice guideline developers. Medical Care 47 (8) 908-915.

Boivin, A., Legare, F. & Gagnon, M.P. (2008). Competing norms: Canadian rural family physicians' perceptions of clinical practice guidelines and shared decision-making. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy 13 (2) 79-84.

Schunemann, H.J., Fretheim, A., Oxman, A.D. (2006). Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 10. Integrating values and consumer involvement. Health Research Policy and Systems 4, 22.

Legare, F., Boivin, A., van der Weijden, T., Pakenham, C., Burgers, J., Legare, J., St-Jacques, S. & Gagnon, S. (2011). Patient and Public Involvement in Clinical Practice Guidelines: A Knowledge Synthesis of Existing Programs. Medical Decision Making 31 (6) E45-74.

Legare, F., Boivin, A., van der Weijden, T., Packenham, C., Tapp, S. & Burgers, J. (2009). A knowledge synthesis of patient and public involvement in clinical practice guidelines: study protocol. Implementation Science 4 (1) 30.

Gauvin, F-P. & Abelson, J. (2006). Primer on Public Involvement. Taking the pulse. Toronto: Health Council of Canada.

Rowe, G. & Frewer L.J. (2005). A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science Technology & Human Values 30 (2) 251-290.

Diaz Del Campo, P., Gracia, J., Blasco, J. A. & Andradas, E. (2011). A strategy for patient involvement in clinical practice guidelines: methodological approaches. British Medical Journal Quality and Safety 20 (9) 779-784.

Church, J., Saunders, D., Wanke, M., Pong, R., Spooner, C. & Dorgan, M. (2002). Citizen participation in health decision-making: past experience and future prospects. Journal of Public Health Policy 23 (1) 12-32.

Einsiedel, E.F. (2002). Assessing a controversial medical technology: Canadian public consultations on xenotransplantation. Public Understanding of Science 11 (4) 315.

Pijnenborg L. & van Veenendaal, H. (2003). Patient Involvement.

van Vaanandaal, H. (2005). Patient involvement in guideline development.

World Health Organization. (2008). WHO handbook for guideline development.

National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. (2007). The guidelines manual.

Kelson, M., Bastian, H., Cluzeau, F., Curtis, R., Guyatt, G., Montori, V., Oliver, S. & Schünemann, H. (2007). Integrating values and preferences and patient, carer and public involvement in COPD guidelines: the patient at the centre.

Abelson, J., Forest, P.G., Eyles, J., Casebeer, A., Martin, E. & Mackean, G. (2007). Examining the role of context in the implementation of a deliberative public participation experiment: Results from a Canadian comparative study. Social Science & Medicine 64 (10) 2115-2128.

Grol, R. (2010). Has guideline development gone astray? Yes. British Medical Journal 340, c306.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5750/ijpcm.v2i4.290

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.