Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37327814›Full record

ReviewGesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany))2023

[Participation of Patients in the Development of Clinical Guidelines: A Selective Country Comparison in a Narrative Review].

Christiane Kiese-Himmel

Abstract readReviewEnglish Abstract
In one paragraph

Review in Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

1 author.

Christiane Kiese-HimmelMedizinische Psychologie und Medizinische Soziologie; Phoniatrisch/Pädaudiologische Psychologie, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Universitätsmedizin Göttingen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimA clinical practice guideline aims to optimize patient care by recommending diagnostic or treatment pathways, based on the best available research and practical experience. Therefore, the needs and preferences of patients and their families should be incorporated. The aim of this study was to examine regulations and standards of patient involvement in guideline development, using a selective comparison of countries.

methodInformation was extracted from publicly available websites and guidelines development manuals for the United Kingdom (UK), the United States, Canada, and Australia. They were compared and discussed in a narrative review.

resultsIn the UK, at least two people from among patients or the public must be involved in all guideline development committees and during all stages of the development process. The US National Academy of Medicine recommends active participation in guideline development groups by patients with disease-specific experience and patient representatives from the public. The Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care wants patient preferences to be involved, especially in the development of final guideline recommendations and usability testing. In Australia, guidelines receive the approval or seal of approval of the National Health and Medical Research Council if at least one patient representative can be shown to have been a member of the committee and to have been involved in the entire process of guideline development.

conclusionThe selective country comparison shows that patient involvement in guideline development and the binding nature of the rules vary considerably, and that there are no uniform standards for involvement. Many issues of involvement are unresolved, and special sensitivity will be needed to bring together the life and experiences of patients/laypersons and the medical system on an equal footing.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based MedicinePatient ParticipationCanadaGermanyHumans

Identifiers

PMID37327814
PMCPMC11248075

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.