Role of patient preferences in clinical practice guidelines: a multiple methods study using guidelines from oncology as a case

Abstract

ObjectiveMany treatment decisions are preference-sensitive and call for shared decision-making, notably when benefits are limited or uncertain, and harms impact quality of life. We explored if clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) acknowledge preference-sensitive decisions in how they motivate and phrase their recommendations.DesignWe performed a qualitative analysis of the content of CPGs and verified the results in semistructured interviews with CPG panel members.SettingDutch oncology CPGs issued in 2010 or later, concerning primary treatment with curative intent.Participants14 CPG panel members.Main outcomesFor treatment recommendations from six CPG modules, two researchers extracted the following: strength of recommendation in terms of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation and its consistency with the CPG text; completeness of presentation of benefits and harms; incorporation of patient preferences; statements on the panel’s benefits–harm trade-off underlying recommendation; and advice on patient involvement in decision-making.ResultsWe identified 32 recommendations, 18 were acknowledged preference-sensitive decisions. Three of 14 strong recommendations should have been weak based on the module text. The reporting of benefits and harms, and their probabilities, was sufficiently complete and clear to inform the strength of the recommendation in one of the six modules only. Numerical probabilities were seldom presented. None of the modules presented information on patient preferences. CPG panel’s preferences were not made explicit, but appeared to have impacted 15 of 32 recommendations. Advice to involve patients and their preferences in decision-making was given for 20 recommendations (14 weak). Interviewees confirmed these findings. Explanations for lack of information were, for example, that clinicians know the information and that CPGs must be short. Explanations for trade-offs made were cultural-historical preferences, compliance with daily care, presumed role of CPGs and lack of time.ConclusionsThe motivation and phrasing of CPG recommendations do not stimulate choice awareness and a neutral presentation of options, thus hindering shared decision-making.

Image-Guided Thermal Ablation as an Alternative to Surgery for Papillary Thyroid Microcarcinoma: Preliminary Results of an Italian Experience

“…Assessing patient's perceptions and preferences for available treatments is becoming every day more important in decision making in oncology. Specifically, in recent years, there has been a shift toward a more patient-centered care and a growing emphasis on the relevance of involving patients in the clinical decision-making (50)(51)(52)(53), as well in the evaluation of competing treatment options or health interventions (54,55). For example, as highlighted by the P5 medicine approach (56,57), each patient has a peculiar set of psychological and cognitive factors, such as preferences and needs and, as well as hopes, fear, beliefs and cognitive dispositions.…”

Thyroid Cancer Patients’ View of Clinician Professionalism and Multidisciplinary Approach to Their Management

“… 26–29 All treatment decisions are preference-sensitive and require shared decision-making, notably when benefits are limited or uncertain and may cause harm to or diminish quality of life. 30 Patients must be empowered to decide on the course of their own therapy. 19…”

Differences in Importance Attached to Drug Effects Between Patients With Type 2 Diabetes From the Netherlands and Turkey: A Preference Study

“…Currently, guideline recommendations to incorporate patient preferences in clinical practice are unspecific, and they are insufficient to guide a healthcare professional on how to detect, discuss or include patient preferences in their treatment decisions ( van de Bovenkamp and Zuiderent-Jerak, 2015 ; Gartner et al, 2019 ; Cosentino et al, 2020 ). Although the results of our study are presented at a population level, they can be a step forward in guiding healthcare professionals.…”