Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38229078›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2024

Barriers and facilitators in developing patient versions of clinical practice guidelines - qualitative interviews on experiences of international guideline producers.

Nora Meyer, Julia Hauprich, Jessica Breuing, Irma Hellbrecht, Sarah Wahlen, Nadja Könsgen, Stefanie Bühn, Monika Becker, Susanne Blödt, Günther Carl and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. [The added value of self-help-oriented research in oncology for stakeholders in Germany].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

16 authors.

Nora MeyerInstitute for Research in Operative Medicine (IFOM), Department for Evidence Based Health Services Research, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Health, Witten/Herdecke University, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, Building 38, 51109, Cologne, Germany. nora.meyer@uni-wh.de.
Julia HauprichInstitute for Research in Operative Medicine (IFOM), Department for Evidence Based Health Services Research, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Health, Witten/Herdecke University, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, Building 38, 51109, Cologne, Germany.
Jessica BreuingInstitute for Research in Operative Medicine (IFOM), Department for Evidence Based Health Services Research, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Health, Witten/Herdecke University, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, Building 38, 51109, Cologne, Germany.
Irma HellbrechtInstitute for Research in Operative Medicine (IFOM), Department for Evidence Based Health Services Research, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Health, Witten/Herdecke University, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, Building 38, 51109, Cologne, Germany.
Sarah WahlenInstitute for Research in Operative Medicine (IFOM), Department for Evidence Based Health Services Research, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Health, Witten/Herdecke University, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, Building 38, 51109, Cologne, Germany.
Nadja KönsgenInstitute for Research in Operative Medicine (IFOM), Department for Evidence Based Health Services Research, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Health, Witten/Herdecke University, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, Building 38, 51109, Cologne, Germany.
Stefanie BühnInstitute for Research in Operative Medicine (IFOM), Department for Evidence Based Health Services Research, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Health, Witten/Herdecke University, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, Building 38, 51109, Cologne, Germany.
Monika BeckerInstitute for Research in Operative Medicine (IFOM), Department for Evidence Based Health Services Research, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Health, Witten/Herdecke University, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, Building 38, 51109, Cologne, Germany.
Susanne BlödtInstitute for Medical Knowledge Management c/o Philipps University Marburg, Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany, Marburg/Berlin, Germany.
Günther CarlGerman Prostate Cancer Support Group, Bonn, Germany.
Markus FollmannOffice of the German Guideline Program in Oncology (GGPO),c/o, German Cancer Society, Berlin, Germany.
Stefanie FrenzFrauenselbsthilfe Krebs Bundesverband, Bonn, Germany.
Thomas LangerOffice of the German Guideline Program in Oncology (GGPO),c/o, German Cancer Society, Berlin, Germany.
Monika NothackerInstitute for Medical Knowledge Management c/o Philipps University Marburg, Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany, Marburg/Berlin, Germany.
Corinna SchaeferGerman Agency for Quality in Medicine, Berlin, Germany.
Dawid PieperInstitute for Research in Operative Medicine (IFOM), Department for Evidence Based Health Services Research, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Health, Witten/Herdecke University, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, Building 38, 51109, Cologne, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSeveral guideline organizations produce patient versions of clinical practice guidelines (PVGs) which translate recommendations into simple language. A former study of our working group revealed that few guideline organizations publish their methods used to develop PVGs. Clear definitions of PVGs do not prevail and their purposes often remain unclear. We aimed to explore experts' perspectives on developing, disseminating and implementing PVGs to discuss and incorporate these experiences when consenting on methodological guidance and further improving PVGs.

methodsWe conducted 17 semi-structured telephone interviews with international experts working with PVGs from September 2021 through January 2022. We conducted the interviews in English or German, they were recorded and transcribed verbatim. We utilized Mayring's qualitative content analysis with MAXQDA software to analyze the data.

resultsIn two interviews two participants were interviewed at the same time. This resulted in a total of 19 participants from 16 different organizations and eight different countries participated. Most were female (16/19) and their experience in working with PVGs ranged from 1 to 20 years. All follow methodological standards when developing PVGs, but the extent of these standards and their public accessibility differs. Aims and target groups of PVGs vary between organizations. Facilitators for developing PVGs are working with a multidisciplinary team, financial resources, consultation processes and a high-quality underlying CPG. Facilitators for disseminating and implementing PVGs are using various strategies. Barriers, on the other hand, are the lack of these factors. All participants mentioned patient involvement as a key aspect in PVG development.

conclusionThe steps in the PVG development process are largely similar across the countries. Focus is placed on the involvement of patients in the development process, although the extent of participation varies. The experts collectively attribute great importance to PVGs overall, but in order to constantly adapt to medical progress and changing conditions, the focus in the future may be more on formats like living guidelines. Although there are different views on the mandatory development of PVGs, there is a consistent call for more transparency regarding the methodology used for PVGs.

Indexed as

Patient ParticipationPractice Guidelines as TopicQualitative ResearchFemaleHumansMaleDevelopmentDisseminationEvidence-based patient informationGuideline developmentImplementationMethodologyPatient versions of clinical practice guidelines

Identifiers

PMID38229078
PMCPMC10790536

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.