Incorporating patients' views in guideline development: a systematic review of guidance documents

Selva, Anna; Sanabria, Andrea Juliana; Pequeño, Sandra; Zhang, Yuan; Solà, Iván; Pardo-Hernandez, Héctor; Olid, Clara Selva; Schünemann, Holger J.; Alonso‐Coello, Pablo

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.05.018

Cited by 61 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…26 However, as in an earlier review of pneumonia guidelines, 23 there was lack of patient involvement in all the guidelines included in this review. 26 The importance of updating clinical guidelines as new evidence emerges is well recognized. 15 One systematic review evaluating the guidance documents for clinical guidelines reported that most of them lack details of the mechanism for involving patients and their views.…”

Section: Items Of the Agree-ii Instrumentmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…The views of patients are important as they will be affected directly by the recommendations. 26 However, as in an earlier review of pneumonia guidelines, 23 there was lack of patient involvement in all the guidelines included in this review. Patient perspective was only addressed in one guideline.…”

Section: Items Of the Agree-ii Instrumentmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…Of The views of patients are important as they will be affected directly by the recommendations. 26 The same systematic review recommended the use of the GIN-McMaster Guidelines 2.0 development checklist to assist guideline developers as it contains specific guidance related to consumer and stakeholder involvement. Patient perspective was only addressed in one guideline.…”

Section: Items Of the Agree-ii Instrumentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…15 One systematic review evaluating the guidance documents for clinical guidelines reported that most of them lack details of the mechanism for involving patients and their views. 26 The same systematic review recommended the use of the GIN-McMaster Guidelines 2.0 development checklist to assist guideline developers as it contains specific guidance related to consumer and stakeholder involvement. 26 The importance of updating clinical guidelines as new evidence emerges is well recognized.…”

Section: Items Of the Agree-ii Instrumentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…26 The same systematic review recommended the use of the GIN-McMaster Guidelines 2.0 development checklist to assist guideline developers as it contains specific guidance related to consumer and stakeholder involvement. 26 The importance of updating clinical guidelines as new evidence emerges is well recognized. 27 In our review, the methodology for updating was not clearly provided in any of the guidelines.…”

Section: Items Of the Agree-ii Instrumentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

The methodological quality of guidelines for hospital-acquired pneumonia and ventilator-associated pneumonia: A systematic review

Khan

Aziz

2018

J Clin Pharm Ther

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Items Of the Agree-ii Instrumentmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Items Of the Agree-ii Instrumentmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Items Of the Agree-ii Instrumentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Items Of the Agree-ii Instrumentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Items Of the Agree-ii Instrumentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The methodological quality of guidelines for hospital-acquired pneumonia and ventilator-associated pneumonia: A systematic review

Khan

Aziz

2018

J Clin Pharm Ther

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

PROTOCOL: Barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in health guideline development: A qualitative evidence synthesis

Magwood

Riddle

Petkovic

et al. 2022

Campbell Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background There is a need for the development of comprehensive, global, evidence‐based guidance for stakeholder engagement in guideline development. Stakeholders are any individual or group who is responsible for or affected by health‐ and healthcare‐related decisions. This includes patients, the public, providers of health care and policymakers for example. As part of the guidance development process, Multi‐Stakeholder Engagement (MuSE) Consortium set out to conduct four concurrent systematic reviews to summarise the evidence on: (1) existing guidance for stakeholder engagement in guideline development, (2) barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in guideline development, (3) managing conflicts of interest in stakeholder engagement in guideline development and (4) measuring the impact of stakeholder engagement in guideline development. This protocol addresses the second systematic review in the series. Objectives The objective of this review is to identify and synthesise the existing evidence on barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in health guideline development. We will address this objective through two research questions: (1) What are the barriers to multi‐stakeholder engagement in health guideline development across any of the 18 steps of the GIN‐McMaster checklist? (2) What are the facilitators to multi‐stakeholder engagement in health guideline development across any of the 18 steps of the GIN‐McMaster checklist? Search Methods A comprehensive search strategy will be developed and peer‐reviewed in consultation with a medical librarian. We will search the following databases: MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), EMBASE, PsycInfo, Scopus, and Sociological Abstracts. To identify grey literature, we will search the websites of agencies who actively engage stakeholder groups such as the AHRQ, Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Strategy for Patient‐Oriented Research (SPOR), INVOLVE, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the PCORI. We will also search the websites of guideline‐producing agencies, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, Australia's National Health Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and the WHO. We will invite members of the team to suggest grey literature sources and we plan to broaden the search by soliciting suggestions via social media, such as Twitter. Selection Criteria We will include empirical qualitative and mixed‐method primary research studies which qualitatively report on the barriers or facilitators to stakeholder engagement in health guideline development. The population of interest is stakeholders in health guideline development. Building on previous work, we have identified 13 types of stakeholders whose input can enhance the relevance and uptake of guidelines: Patients, caregivers and patient advocates; Public; Providers of health care; Payers of health services; Payers of research; Policy makers; Program managers; Product makers; Purchasers; Principal investigators an...

show abstract

PROTOCOL: Guidance for stakeholder engagement in guideline development: A scoping review

Petkovic

Riddle

Lytvyn

et al. 2022

Campbell Systematic Reviews

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Incorporating patients' views in guideline development: a systematic review of guidance documents

Cited by 61 publications

References 22 publications

The methodological quality of guidelines for hospital-acquired pneumonia and ventilator-associated pneumonia: A systematic review

The methodological quality of guidelines for hospital-acquired pneumonia and ventilator-associated pneumonia: A systematic review

PROTOCOL: Barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in health guideline development: A qualitative evidence synthesis

PROTOCOL: Guidance for stakeholder engagement in guideline development: A scoping review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About