Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30111965›Full record

ArticleCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2018

Engaging cancer patients in clinical practice guideline development: a pilot study.

M C Brouwers, M Vukmirovic, K Spithoff, C Zwaal, S McNair, N Peek

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

6 authors.

M C BrouwersDepartment of Oncology, McMaster University and the Escarpment Cancer Research Institute, Hamilton.
M VukmirovicDepartment of Oncology, McMaster University and the Escarpment Cancer Research Institute, Hamilton.
K SpithoffDepartment of Oncology, McMaster University and the Escarpment Cancer Research Institute, Hamilton.
C ZwaalProgram in Evidence-Based Care, Cancer Care Ontario, Hamilton; and.
S McNairProgram in Evidence-Based Care, Cancer Care Ontario, Hamilton; and.
N PeekPerson-Centred Care, Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto, ON.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Patient engagement is a key quality component of cancer guideline development; however, the optimal strategy for engaging patients in guideline development remains unclear. The feasibility and efficacy of two patient engagement models was tested by Cancer Care Ontario's cancer guideline development program, the Program in Evidence-Based Care (pebc). Methods: In model 1, patients participated in the guideline development process as active members of a working group. In model 2, patients formed a separate consultation group to review project plans and recommendations generated by multiple working groups. Training included online resources (model 1) and an in-person orientation (model 2). The pebc's standard patient engagement process acted as a control. The study was conducted for 1 year. Surveys measured the satisfaction of patients and members of the guideline working groups with the process and the outcome of each model. Results: Three guideline projects used model 1 to engage patients, six projects used model 2 to receive feedback, and one project was used as a control group (14 patients total). Most participants, whatever the model, reported satisfaction with their experience. Key challenges to implementation included patient recruitment and long wait times between meetings (model 1), and difficulty focusing on the discussion topic and poor meeting attendance on the part of patients (model 2). Conclusions: The pilot study demonstrated that, although both models are feasible and effective for the engagement of patients in cancer guideline development, modifications are required to optimize their continued interest. The pebc will use the study results to inform the implementation of a patient engagement strategy for its program.

Indexed as

Guidelines as TopicHumansNeoplasmsPatient ParticipationPilot ProjectsSurveys and Questionnairesclinical practice guidelinesmixed methodsPatient engagementperson-centred care

Identifiers

PMID30111965
PMCPMC6092053

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.