A van Wersch1, M Eccles. 1. Centre for Health Services Research, School of Health Sciences, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne NE2 4AA, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Consumer involvement in clinical guidelines has long been advocated although there are few empirical accounts of attempts to do so. It is therefore not surprising that there is a lack of clarity about how and when to involve consumers and what to expect from them within the process of guideline development. METHODS: The North of England evidence based guideline development programme has used four different methods of consumer involvement. RESULTS: When individual patients were included in a guideline development group they contributed infrequently and had problems with the use of technical language. Although they contributed most in discussions of patient education, their contributions were not subsequently acted on. In a "one off" meeting with a group of patients there were again reported problems with medical terminology and the group were most interested in sections on patient education and self management. However, their understanding of the use of scientific evidence in order to contribute to a more cost effective health care remained unclear. In a workshop it was possible to explain the technical elements of guideline development to patients who could then engage with such a process and make relevant suggestions as a consequence. However, this was relatively resource intensive. A patient advocate within a guideline development group felt confidence to speak, was used to having discussions with health professionals, and was familiar with the medical terminology. CONCLUSIONS: Consumers should be involved in all stages of guideline development. While this is possible, it is not straightforward. There is no one right way to accomplish this and there is a clear need for further work on how best to achieve it.
BACKGROUND: Consumer involvement in clinical guidelines has long been advocated although there are few empirical accounts of attempts to do so. It is therefore not surprising that there is a lack of clarity about how and when to involve consumers and what to expect from them within the process of guideline development. METHODS: The North of England evidence based guideline development programme has used four different methods of consumer involvement. RESULTS: When individual patients were included in a guideline development group they contributed infrequently and had problems with the use of technical language. Although they contributed most in discussions of patient education, their contributions were not subsequently acted on. In a "one off" meeting with a group of patients there were again reported problems with medical terminology and the group were most interested in sections on patient education and self management. However, their understanding of the use of scientific evidence in order to contribute to a more cost effective health care remained unclear. In a workshop it was possible to explain the technical elements of guideline development to patients who could then engage with such a process and make relevant suggestions as a consequence. However, this was relatively resource intensive. A patient advocate within a guideline development group felt confidence to speak, was used to having discussions with health professionals, and was familiar with the medical terminology. CONCLUSIONS: Consumers should be involved in all stages of guideline development. While this is possible, it is not straightforward. There is no one right way to accomplish this and there is a clear need for further work on how best to achieve it.
Authors: Carina A C M Pittens; Antonie Vonk Noordegraaf; Saskia C van Veen; Johannes R Anema; Judith A F Huirne; Jacqueline E W Broerse Journal: Health Expect Date: 2013-08-29 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Isabel Del-Cura González; Francisca García-de-Blas González; Teresa Sanz Cuesta; Jesús Martín Fernández; Justo M Del-Alamo Rodríguez; Rosa A Escriva Ferrairo; M Del Canto De-Hoyos Alonso; Laura Balsalobre Arenas; Ricardo Rodríguez Barrientos; Elisa Ceresuela Wiesmann; Cristina De-Alba Romero; Yolanda Ginés Díaz; Ana Pastor Rodríguez-Moñino; Blanca Gutiérrez Teira; Marta Sánchez-Celaya Del Pozo; Jesús Fernández Horcajuelo; María J Rojas Giraldo; Paulino Cubero González; Rocío A Vello Cuadrado; Beatriz López Uriarte; Jeannet Sánchez Yepes; Yolanda Hernando Sanz; M José Iglesias Piñeiro; Susana Tudanca Hernández; Fernando Gallardo Alonso; Ana I González González; Alicia Simón Fernández; Carmen Carballo; Ana Rey López; Fernanda Morales; Dolores Martínez López Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2011-01-31 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Anna H Kingston; Anthony F Jorm; Betty A Kitchener; Leanne Hides; Claire M Kelly; Amy J Morgan; Laura M Hart; Dan I Lubman Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2009-12-07 Impact factor: 3.630