ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2012
Feasibility of a wiki as a participatory tool for patients in clinical guideline development.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Practical Considerations for Using Online Methods to Engage Patients in Guideline Development.The patient · 2018Pooled it
- Collaborative writing applications in healthcare: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- A randomized controlled trial comparing in-person and wiki-inspired nominal group techniques for engaging stakeholders in chronic kidney disease research prioritization.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2016Trial
- Trial
- Improving the implementation of tailored expectant management in subfertile couples: protocol for a cluster randomized trial.Implementation science : IS · 2013Trial
- Community engagement in health guidelines and other normative products: a methodological review.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2025Review
- Patient and public involvement in the development of clinical practice guidelines: a scoping review.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Evaluating the Acceptability, Feasibility, and Outcomes of Two Methods Involving Patients With Disability in Developing Clinical Guidelines: Crossover Pilot Study.Journal of participatory medicine · 2021Article
- How to identify, incorporate and report patient preferences in clinical guidelines: A scoping review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020Article
- Practical Considerations in Using Online Modified-Delphi Approaches to Engage Patients and Other Stakeholders in Clinical Practice Guideline Development.The patient · 2020Article
- Clinical indicators for common paediatric conditions: Processes, provenance and products of the CareTrack Kids study.PloS one · 2019Article
- Article
- Experts Consensus Recommendations for the Management of Calcium Channel Blocker Poisoning in Adults.Critical care medicine · 2017Article
- How to identify existing literature on patients' knowledge, views, and values: the development of a validated search filter.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2016Article
- Evidence-based medicine: is it a bridge too far?Health research policy and systems · 2015Article
- Article
- Implementation and Evaluation of a Wiki Involving Multiple Stakeholders Including Patients in the Promotion of Best Practices in Trauma Care: The WikiTrauma Interrupted Time Series Protocol.JMIR research protocols · 2015Article
- Development and Evaluation of an Educational E-Tool to Help Patients With Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma Manage Their Personal Care Pathway.JMIR research protocols · 2015Article
- A patient-centered network approach to multidisciplinary-guideline development: a process evaluation.Implementation science : IS · 2014Article
- A cohort study of a tailored web intervention for preconception care.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient participation is essential in developing high-quality guidelines but faces practical challenges. Evidence on timing, methods, evaluations, and outcomes of methodologies for patient participation in guideline development is lacking.
objectiveTo assess the feasibility of a wiki as a participatory tool for patients in the development of a guideline on infertility determined by (1) use of the wiki (number of page views and visitors), (2) benefits of the wiki (ie, number, content, and eligibility of the recommendations to be integrated into the guideline), and (3) patients' facilitators of and barriers to adoption, and the potential challenges to be overcome in improving this wiki.
methodsTo obtain initial content for the wiki, we conducted in-depth interviews (n = 12) with infertile patients. Transcripts from the interviews were translated into 90 draft recommendations. These were presented on a wiki. Over 7 months, infertile patients were invited through advertisements or mailings to formulate new or modify existing recommendations. After modifying the recommendations, we asked patients to select their top 5 or top 3 recommendations for each of 5 sections on fertility care. Finally, the guideline development group assessed the eligibility of the final set of recommendations within the scope of the guideline. We used a multimethod evaluation strategy to assess the feasibility of the wiki as a participatory tool for patients in guideline development.
resultsThe wiki attracted 298 unique visitors, yielding 289 recommendations. We assessed the 21 recommendations ranked as the top 5 or top 3 for their eligibility for being integrated into the clinical practice guideline. The evaluation identified some challenges needed to be met to improve the wiki tool, concerning its ease of use, website content and layout, and characteristics of the wiki tool.
conclusionsThe wiki is a promising and feasible participatory tool for patients in guideline development. A modified version of this tool including new modalities (eg, automatically limiting the number and length of recommendations, using a fixed format for recommendations, including a motivation page, and adding a continuous prioritization system) should be developed and evaluated in a patient-centered design.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.