ArticleBMJ open2026
Development of an educational video to support guideline panels in incorporating patient values and preferences into recommendation-making: qualitative one-on-one interviews and brainstorming meetings.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study was to develop an educational video introducing an innovative panel survey approach to facilitate guideline panels in making inferences about patient values and preferences.
designA user testing of the educational video through one-on-one interviews and iterative refinement of the video through brainstorming meetings.
settingInterviews and brainstorming meetings were conducted through Zoom.
participantsThe participants of the interviews include guideline panellists who had used the panel survey approach, and guideline panellists who had not used the approach but would or would not participate in a panel survey soon. The participants of the brainstorming meetings were a steering committee with expertise in guideline methodology and qualitative research. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The understandability and usefulness of the educational video.
resultsWe interviewed 18 guideline panellists from eight different guideline panels, all of whom carefully reviewed the video. Most participants found the video useful in explaining the panel survey approach and its role in incorporating patient values and preferences. Participants suggested improvements, including clarifying key concepts and using plain language instead of technical terminology to make the content more accessible. The major change the steering committee decided to make through brainstorming meetings was to add clarification, refine the wording and replace some text with animation.
conclusionUser testing resulted in an improved educational video that is more useful and understandable for guideline panellists. Wider implementation of this resource has the potential to enhance the incorporation of patient values and preferences in guideline recommendations, supporting more patient-centred decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.