ArticlePalliative care and social practice2026
Participatory development of patient-targeted guideline material in palliative care: A qualitative evaluation.
Article in Palliative care and social practice, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patient and public involvement (PPI) improves patient-targeted guideline material and is recognised internationally as essential in guideline development. Whilst current research has focussed on PPI both in guideline development and palliative care, evidence regarding its implementation in developing patient-targeted guideline material is limited. Aim: To explore participants' experiences and identify supportive and challenging factors in the participatory development of patient-targeted guideline material in palliative care. Design: Qualitative evaluation of the participatory development process (04/2024 - 09/2024) of a patient guide to a German best practise recommendation on intentional sedation using questionnaires with open-ended questions followed by semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed using structuring qualitative content analysis according to Kuckartz. Setting/Participants: Four PPI members and four healthcare professionals randomly selected from the editorial panel tasked with developing the patient guide. Results: The participatory approach with experienced PPI-members as experts for lay-comprehensibility fostered an equal and respectful environment, allowing all participants to contribute. Despite successful organisation and communication, obstacles arose regarding time management and technical challenges with hybrid sessions and digital co-working formats. The participants did not require additional methodological training. Working in subgroups proved effective and offered emotional support but carried the risk of creating inequalities. Conclusion: PPI can be supported by recruiting experienced PPI advisory board members, providing flexibility through hybrid sessions and managing emotional distress through creating a save atmosphere with peer support in subgroup sessions. Communication barriers in hybrid meetings, rejection of digital co-working formats, inattention to PPI in subgroup sessions and time management issues must be considered when planning a project.
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.