ArticleBMC health services research2017
Understanding optimal approaches to patient and caregiver engagement in the development of cancer practice guidelines: a mixed methods study.
Article in BMC health services research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of patient involvement on clinical practice guideline development: a parallel group study.Implementation science : IS · 2018Trial
- Barriers and Facilitators to Interest-Holder Engagement in Health Guideline Development: A Qualitative Evidence Synthesis.Campbell systematic reviews · 2026Review
- Community engagement in health guidelines and other normative products: a methodological review.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2025Review
- Stress and Quality of Life in Caregivers of Patients with Multiple Sclerosis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- Rationalizing the Influence of Co-Design on Distress, Clinical Decision-Making and Disease Self-Management of Cancer Patients-as-Partners: A Quasi-Experimental Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
- Patient and carer involvement in the formulation of research questions: findings from the Italian guideline on palliative care in adults with glioma.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2023Article
- Patient engagement in the development and delivery of healthcare services: a systematic scoping review.BMJ open quality · 2023Article
- Benefits and barriers to engagement of mental health caregivers in advisory roles: Results from a cross-sectional survey.Health science reports · 2023Article
- Organisation, influence, and impact of patient advisory boards in rehabilitation institutions-an explorative cross-sectional study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2022Article
- PROTOCOL: Barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in health guideline development: A qualitative evidence synthesis.Campbell systematic reviews · 2022Article
- Guía de práctica clínica mexicana para el diagnóstico y tratamiento de las dislipidemias y enfermedad cardiovascular aterosclerótica.Archivos de cardiologia de Mexico · 2022Article
- Article
- Engaging cancer patients in clinical practice guideline development: a pilot study.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPractice guidelines (PGs) can assist health care practitioners and patients to make decisions about health care options. A key component of high quality PGs is the consideration of patient values and preferences. A mixed methods study was conducted to understand optimal approaches to patient engagement in the development of cancer PGs.
methodsCancer patients, survivors, family members and caregivers were recruited from cancer clinics, follow-up clinics, community support programs, a provincial patient and family advisory committee, and a provincial cancer PG development program. Participants attended a workshop, completed a survey, or participated in a telephone interview, to provide information about PG awareness, attitudes, information needs, training, engagement approaches and barriers and facilitators.
resultsForty-one participants (12 workshop attendees, 21 survey respondents and 8 interviewees) provided data. For those with no PG development experience, fewer than half were previously aware of PGs but perceived several benefits to the inclusion of this perspective. Common barriers to participation across the groups were time commitment, duration of the PG development process, and financial costs. Positive beliefs about the contributions that could be made and practical considerations (e.g., orientation and training, defined roles and expectations) were identified as key features in the successful integration of patients into the PG development process. There was no single model of engagement favored over another.
conclusionsStudy results align with similar studies in other contexts and with international patient engagement efforts. Findings are being used to test new patient engagement models in a programmatic PG development initiative in Ontario, Canada.
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.