Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26837683›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2016

Improving the user experience of patient versions of clinical guidelines: user testing of a Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network (SIGN) patient version.

Naomi Fearns, Karen Graham, Gordon Johnston, Duncan Service

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Perceptions and Attitudes of People With Cancer and Diabetes Towards Patient Guidelines: A Mixed Methods Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

4 authors.

Naomi FearnsHealthcare Improvement Scotland, Gyle Square, 1 South Gyle Crescent, Edinburgh, EH12 9EB, Scotland, UK. n.fearns@nhs.net.
Karen GrahamHealthcare Improvement Scotland, Gyle Square, 1 South Gyle Crescent, Edinburgh, EH12 9EB, Scotland, UK. Karen.graham2@nhs.net.
Gordon JohnstonHealthcare Improvement Scotland, Gyle Square, 1 South Gyle Crescent, Edinburgh, EH12 9EB, Scotland, UK. g_johnston@btopenworld.com.
Duncan ServiceHealthcare Improvement Scotland, Gyle Square, 1 South Gyle Crescent, Edinburgh, EH12 9EB, Scotland, UK. duncan.service@nhs.net.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGuideline producers are increasingly producing versions of guidelines for the public, and knowledge of what the public want from them is also increasing. The aim of this study was to user test a patient version of a SIGN clinical guideline that was designed based on preliminary work for the DECIDE project. SIGN is the leading national guideline producer in Scotland.

methodsPeople with a diagnosis of glaucoma and non-professional carers were recruited from across Scotland. User testing was conducted using a think-aloud protocol method. Each session was conducted by one interviewer and one observer. All sessions were recorded and transcribed. The data was analysed, problems with the guideline were identified and resolved and key findings were themed using a user experience model.

resultsThirteen user testing sessions with people with glaucoma and one with a carer were conducted. Key facilitators of desirability and usability identified include clear branding as a patient version and a clearly described purpose, audience and contents page. Other facilitators include a "friendly" tone which is achieved by the use of colour, quotes, icons, simple language and charts, and brief chunked text. The value and usefulness of the patient guideline was influenced by its ability to: inform the public, link information to actions, and empower people in their interaction with healthcare professionals. Participants were disappointed by the lack of information on treatment in the patient version, which was outside its scope. Information on the evidence based guideline production process and the involvement of appropriately skilled professionals was key to the credibility of the guideline. Lack of awareness of guidelines and guideline producing bodies, is a potentially serious threat to findability/accessibility.

conclusionsIt is important for guideline producers to maximise the user experience of the public when they access patient versions of guidelines, particularly given the current low level of access and awareness. One size does not fit all and guideline producers need to strike a balance between keeping the patient version simple and providing sufficient information to facilitate shared decision making and empower the public. Guideline producers may find the results of this study useful in designing their own patient versions.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overAttitude of Health PersonnelAwarenessCaregiversDecision MakingEvidence-Based MedicineFemaleGlaucomaHealth PersonnelHumansMaleModels, TheoreticalObserver VariationPatient Education as TopicPatient Satisfaction

Identifiers

PMID26837683
PMCPMC4736267

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.