Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17147811›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2006

Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 10. Integrating values and consumer involvement.

Holger J Schünemann, Atle Fretheim, Andrew D Oxman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 74 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
74citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

74 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Promoting informed health choices: the long and winding road.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Management of Menopause in Malaysia 2022: A review from a primary care perspective.Malaysian family physician : the official journal of the Academy of Family Physicians of Malaysia · 2025
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Automatic Diagnosis of Mental Healthcare Information Actionability: Developing Binary Classifiers.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

14 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Holger J SchünemannINFORMA/CLARITY Research Group, S,C, Epidemiologia, Istitituto Regina Elena, Via Elio Chianesi 53, 00144 Rome, Italy. hjs@buffalo.edu
Atle Fretheim
Andrew D Oxman

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe World Health Organization (WHO), like many other organisations around the world, has recognised the need to use more rigorous processes to ensure that health care recommendations are informed by the best available research evidence. This is the 10th of a series of 16 reviews that have been prepared as background for advice from the WHO Advisory Committee on Health Research to WHO on how to achieve this.

objectivesWe reviewed the literature on integrating values and consumers in guideline development.

methodsWe searched PubMed and three databases of methodological studies for existing systematic reviews and relevant methodological research. We reviewed the titles of all citations and retrieved abstracts and full text articles if the citations appeared relevant to the topic. We checked the reference lists of articles relevant to the questions and used snowballing as a technique to obtain additional information. We did not conduct a full systematic review ourselves. Our conclusions based on the available evidence, consideration of what WHO and other organisations are doing and logical arguments. KEY QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS: We did not find a systematic review of methods for integrating values in guidelines, but we found several systematic reviews that dealt with related topics. Whose values should WHO use when making recommendations? Values, the relative importance or worth of a state or consequences of a decision (outcomes relating to benefits, harms, burden and costs), play a role in every recommendation. Ethical considerations, concepts that determine what is right, also play a role. The values used in making recommendations should reflect those of the people affected. Judgements should be explicit and should be informed by input from those affected (including citizens, patients, clinicians and policy makers). When differences in values may lead to different decisions or there is uncertainty about values, this should also be explicit. If differences in values are likely to affect a decision, such that people in different setting would likely make different choices about interventions or actions based on differences in their values, global recommendations should be explicit in terms of which values were applied and allow for adaptation after incorporating local values. How should WHO ensure that appropriate values are integrated in recommendations? All WHO guideline groups should uniformly apply explicit, transparent and clearly described methods for integrating values. WHO should consider involving relevant stakeholders if this is feasible and efficient. WHO should develop a checklist for guidelines panels to help them to ensure that ethical considerations relevant to recommendations are addressed explicitly and transparently. How should users and consumers be involved in generating recommendations? Including consumers in groups that are making global recommendations presents major challenges with respect to the impossibility of including a representative spectrum of consumers from a variety of cultures and settings. Nonetheless, consideration should be given to including consumers in groups who are able to challenge assumptions that are made about the values used for making recommendations, rather than represent the values of consumers around the world. WHO should establish a network to facilitate involvement of users. Draft recommendations should be reviewed by consumers, who should be asked explicitly to consider the values that were used. How should values be presented in recommendations? Recommendations should include a description of how decisions were made about the relative importance of the consequences (benefits, harms and costs) of a decision. Values that influence recommendations should be reported along with the research evidence underlying recommendations. When differences in values would lead to different decisions or there is important uncertainty about values that are critical to a decision, this should be flagged and reflected in the strength of the recommendation. Adaptable guideline templates that allow for integration of different values should be developed and used when differences in values are likely to be critical to a decision.

Identifiers

PMID17147811
PMCPMC1697808

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.