Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24862378›Full record

ArticleThe patient2014

Involving patients in a multidisciplinary European consensus process and in the development of a 'patient summary of the consensus document for colon and rectal cancer care'.

Petra G Boelens, Claire Taylor, Geoffrey Henning, Perla J Marang-van de Mheen, Eloy Espin, Theo Wiggers, Jola Gore-Booth, Barbara Moss, Vincenzo Valentini, Cornelis J H van de Velde

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The patient, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Mapping the role of patient and public involvement during the different stages of healthcare innovation: A scoping review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
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

10 authors.

Petra G BoelensDepartment of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, PO Box 9600, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands, drboelens@hotmail.com.
Claire Taylor
Geoffrey Henning
Perla J Marang-van de Mheen
Eloy Espin
Theo Wiggers
Jola Gore-Booth
Barbara Moss
Vincenzo Valentini
Cornelis J H van de Velde

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextHigh-quality cancer care should be accessible for patients and healthcare professionals. Involvement of patients as partners in guideline formation and consensus processes is still rarely found. EURECCA, short for European Registration of Cancer Care, is the platform to improve outcomes of cancer care by reducing variation in the diagnostic and treatment process. EURECCA acknowledges the important role of patients in implementation of consensus information in clinical practice.

objectiveThe aim of this article is to describe the process of involving patients in the consensus process and in developing the patient summary of the consensus for colon and rectal cancer care.

methodsThe Delphi method for achieving consensus was used. Three online voting rounds and one tele-voting round were offered to an expert panel of oncology professionals and patient representatives. At four different stages, patients and/or patient representatives were involved in the process: (1) during the consensus process, (2) lecturing about the role of the patient, (3) development of the patient summary, and (4) testing the patient summary.

resultsRepresentatives were invited to the voting and commenting rounds of this process and given an equal vote. Although patients were not consulted during the planning stages of this process, patient involvement increased following the panel's discussion of the implementation of the consensus among the patient population. After the consensus meeting, the patient summary was written by patient representatives, oncologists and nurses. A selection of proactive patients reviewed the draft patient summary; responses were positive and several patient-reported outcomes were added. Questionnaires to evaluate the use and implementation of the patient summary in daily practice are currently being developed and tested. Patient consultation will be needed in future planning for selection of topics. DISCUSSION: The present study may function as a model for future consensus processes to involve patients at different stages and to implement both patient and healthcare professional versions in daily practice.

Indexed as

Decision MakingColorectal NeoplasmsConsensus Statements as TopicDelphi TechniqueEuropeOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CarePatient ParticipationPractice Guidelines as TopicQuality of Health Care

Identifiers

PMID24862378

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.