ArticleClinical and public health guidelines2026
Patient Involvement in the Development of Clinical Practice Guidelines - An Interview Study on the Experiences of Patients and Their Representatives in Germany.
Article in Clinical and public health guidelines, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patient involvement (PI) in the development of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) is recognized as a key aspect of trustworthy and high-quality CPGs. However, difficulties exist and PI is not yet consistently implemented in the development of CPGs. Our study aimed at exploring the experiences and perspectives of patients and their representatives regarding their involvement in CPG development processes and to unravel existing challenges. Methods: Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with patient representatives who already participated in the development of a German evidence- and consensus-based CPG. The interviews were conducted using a semi-structured interview guide developed a priori. They took place via the online meeting tool WebEx and were digitally recorded. The interview data was analyzed using qualitative content analysis as described by Mayring using MAXQDA. Results: In total, we conducted 23 interviews from November 2024 to February 2025. Participation in CPG development processes as active and contributing member of the guideline development group was emphasized as the dominating involvement strategy. For a positive PI experience, participants emphasized several influencing factors such as preparatory training, participation of other patient representatives, and appreciation from other guideline group members. Moreover, several challenges were anticipated for the future, for instance the recruitment of patients as well as the need for a more inclusive and diverse involvement. Discussion: Our study found that overall participants were satisfied with the predominant involvement method of acting as participatory members in the guideline development group. Nevertheless, the findings also revealed certain unmet needs. Preparatory activities, such as targeted training sessions or meetings, were identified as essential and should become standard practice. To ensure equitable implementation, CPG developers should consider taking responsibility for preparing patient representatives to participate effectively, rather than relying on patient organizations for this.
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.