Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29090160›Full record

ArticleJournal of comorbidity2015

Incorporating patient preferences in the management of multiple long-term conditions: is this a role for clinical practice guidelines?

Charlotte E Young, Frances M Boyle, Katie S Brooker, Allyson J Mutch

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of comorbidity, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Patients' perceived needs for allied health, and complementary and alternative medicines for low back pain: A systematic scoping review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2018
    Article
  7. Article
  8. 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.

Charlotte E YoungSchool of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Frances M BoyleSchool of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Katie S BrookerQueensland Centre for Intellectual and Developmental Disability (QCIDD), School of Medicine, Mater Research Institute, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Allyson J MutchSchool of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical practice guidelines provide an evidence-based approach to managing single chronic conditions, but their applicability to multiple conditions has been actively debated. Incorporating patient-preference recommendations and involving consumers in guideline development may enhance their applicability, but further understanding is needed.

objectivesTo assess guidelines that include recommendations for comorbid conditions to determine the extent to which they incorporate patient-preference recommendations; use consumer-engagement processes during development, and, if so, whether these processes produce more patient-preference recommendations; and meet standard quality criteria, particularly in relation to stakeholder involvement.

designA review of Australian guidelines published from 2006 to 2014 that incorporated recommendations for managing comorbid conditions in primary care. Document analysis of guidelines examined the presence of patient-preference recommendations and the consumer-engagement processes used. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation instrument was used to assess guideline quality.

resultsThirteen guidelines were reviewed. Twelve included at least one core patient-preference recommendation. Ten used consumer-engagement processes, including participation in development groups (seven guidelines) and reviewing drafts (ten guidelines). More extensive consumer engagement was generally linked to greater incorporation of patient-preference recommendations. Overall quality of guidelines was mixed, particularly in relation to stakeholder involvement.

conclusionsGuidelines do incorporate some patient-preference recommendations, but more explicit acknowledgement is required. Consumer-engagement processes used during guideline development have the potential to assist in identifying patient preferences, but further research is needed. Clarification of the consumer role and investment in consumer training may strengthen these processes.

Indexed as

clinical practice guidelinescomorbidityconsumer participationmultimorbiditypatient preferenceprimary care

Identifiers

PMID29090160
PMCPMC5636037

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.