France Légaré1,2, Antoine Boivin3, Trudy van der Weijden4, Christine Pakenham5, Jako Burgers3, Jean Légaré6, Sylvie St-Jacques7, Susie Gagnon2. 1. Canada Research Chair in Implementation of Shared Decision-Making in Primary Care, Université Laval, Québec City, Québec, Canada (FL) 2. Research Center, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Québec (FL, SG) 3. Scientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (AB, JB) 4. Department of General Practice, School for Public Health and Primary Care (Caphri), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands (TVW) 5. Ministère de la santé et des Services Sociaux de Québec, Québec, Québec, Canada (CP) 6. Canadian Arthritis Alliance (JL) 7. Institut national de santé publique du Québec (SS)
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Reviewers independently extracted data on key components of PPIPs and barriers and facilitators to their operation. Data synthesis. Over half of the studies were published after 2002, and more than half originated from the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Germany. CPGs that involved patients and the public addressed a variety of health problems, especially mental health and cancer. The most frequently cited objective for using PPIPs in developing CPGs was to incorporate patients' values or perspectives in CPG recommendations. Patients and their families and caregivers were the parties most often involved. METHODS: used to recruit PPIP participants included soliciting through patient/public organizations, sending invitations, and receiving referrals and recruits from clinicians. Patients and the public most often participated by taking part in a CPG working group, workshop, meeting, seminar, literature review, or consultation such as a focus group, individual interview, or survey. Patients and the public principally helped formulate recommendations and revise drafts. Limitations. The authors did not contact the authors of the studies. CONCLUSION: This literature review provides an extensive knowledge base for making PPIPs more effective when developing and implementing CPGs. More research is needed to assess the impact of PPIPs and resources they require.
BACKGROUND: Reviewers independently extracted data on key components of PPIPs and barriers and facilitators to their operation. Data synthesis. Over half of the studies were published after 2002, and more than half originated from the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Germany. CPGs that involved patients and the public addressed a variety of health problems, especially mental health and cancer. The most frequently cited objective for using PPIPs in developing CPGs was to incorporate patients' values or perspectives in CPG recommendations. Patients and their families and caregivers were the parties most often involved. METHODS: used to recruit PPIP participants included soliciting through patient/public organizations, sending invitations, and receiving referrals and recruits from clinicians. Patients and the public most often participated by taking part in a CPG working group, workshop, meeting, seminar, literature review, or consultation such as a focus group, individual interview, or survey. Patients and the public principally helped formulate recommendations and revise drafts. Limitations. The authors did not contact the authors of the studies. CONCLUSION: This literature review provides an extensive knowledge base for making PPIPs more effective when developing and implementing CPGs. More research is needed to assess the impact of PPIPs and resources they require.
Authors: Richard Baird; Ian Banks; David Cameron; John Chester; Helena Earl; Mark Flannagan; Adam Januszewski; Richard Kennedy; Sarah Payne; Emlyn Samuel; Hannah Taylor; Roshan Agarwal; Samreen Ahmed; Caroline Archer; Ruth Board; Judith Carser; Ellen Copson; David Cunningham; Rob Coleman; Adam Dangoor; Graham Dark; Diana Eccles; Chris Gallagher; Adam Glaser; Richard Griffiths; Geoff Hall; Marcia Hall; Danielle Harari; Michael Hawkins; Mark Hill; Peter Johnson; Alison Jones; Tania Kalsi; Eleni Karapanagiotou; Zoe Kemp; Janine Mansi; Ernie Marshall; Alex Mitchell; Maung Moe; Caroline Michie; Richard Neal; Tom Newsom-Davis; Alison Norton; Richard Osborne; Gargi Patel; John Radford; Alistair Ring; Emily Shaw; Rod Skinner; Dan Stark; Sam Turnbull; Galina Velikova; Jeff White; Alison Young; Johnathan Joffe; Peter Selby Journal: Ecancermedicalscience Date: 2016-01-05