Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29030831›Full record

SynthesisThe patient2018

Practical Considerations for Using Online Methods to Engage Patients in Guideline Development.

Sean Grant, Glen S Hazlewood, Holly L Peay, Ann Lucas, Ian Coulter, Arlene Fink, Dmitry Khodyakov

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The patient, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The impact of panel composition and topic on stakeholder perspectives: Generating hypotheses from online maternal and child health modified-Delphi panels.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

7 authors.

Sean GrantBehavioral and Policy Sciences Department, RAND Corporation, 1776 Main Street, PO Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA, 90407-2138, USA. sgrant@rand.org.ORCID 0000-0002-7775-3022
Glen S HazlewoodDepartment of Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Holly L PeayRTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Ann LucasParent Project Muscular Dystrophy, Hackensack, NJ, USA.
Ian CoulterEconomics, Sociology, and Statistics Department, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, USA.
Arlene FinkDavid Geffen School of Medicine, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Dmitry KhodyakovBehavioral and Policy Sciences Department, RAND Corporation, 1776 Main Street, PO Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA, 90407-2138, USA.

Funding

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute ME-1507-31052
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have been widely used in healthcare policy, practice, and for suggesting future research. As patients increasingly become involved in CPG development to produce patient-centered recommendations, more research is needed on methods to engage patients, particularly methods allowing for scalable engagement of large, diverse, and geographically distributed groups of patients. In this article, we discuss practical considerations for using online methods to engage patients in CPG development. To inform this discussion, we conducted a rapid, systematic review of literature on patient involvement in CPG development and used qualitative evidence synthesis techniques to make inferences about potential advantages and challenges of using online methods to engage patients in this context. We identified 79 articles containing information about involving patients in CPG development. Potential advantages include the ability of online methods to facilitate greater openness and honesty by patients, as well as to reflect the diversity of patient views, which in turn further improve the utility of CPGs. Potential challenges of using online methods may include the extra skill, time, and certain types of resources that may be needed for patient engagement, as well as the difficulty engaging specific patient populations. However, these challenges are mitigated by growing calls for patient engagement as normative for CPG development in addition to patients' increasing familiarity with online technologies. These practical considerations should be examined empirically as guideline development groups further explore the appropriateness of using online methods to engage patients across different stages of CPG development.

Indexed as

InternetPractice Guidelines as TopicDecision MakingHumansPatient ParticipationResearch DesignTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID29030831

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.