Carina A C M Pittens1, Antonie Vonk Noordegraaf2, Saskia C van Veen1, Johannes R Anema3, Judith A F Huirne2, Jacqueline E W Broerse1. 1. Faculty of Earth and Life Science, Athena Institute for Research on Innovation and Communication in Health and Life Sciences, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Public and Occupational Health, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Most initiatives for patient involvement in guideline development have been carried out for chronic diseases. The involvement of patients with incidental and non-threatening diseases is more complicated. Little knowledge is available on how these patient groups can successfully be involved in guideline development. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of the involvement of gynaecological patients in the guideline development for resumption of (work) activities after surgery. DESIGN: At three different stages patients were involved in the process: (i) three focus group discussions (FGDs) were organized, (ii) patients were involved for the instruction video, and (iii) patients tested the patient version of the clinical guideline. To assess the effectiveness, an evaluation framework was used. The guideline development process was divided into two parallel trajectories in which patients and professionals were consulted separately. Patients were primarily consulted for the development of the patient version, although their input also influenced the recommendations for resumption of (work) activities after surgery. Professionals were mainly involved in the development of the recommendations of the clinical guideline. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The involvement of gynaecological patients in the guideline development for resumption of (work) activities after surgery was successful in many respects. Consultation of individual patients by means of FGDs and with regular feedback moments has been rather effective for a guideline development process related to an incidental, non-threatening disease for which there is no patient organization. Patients' input contributed to applicability of the clinical guideline in daily practice. Increased patient involvement could be achieved by integration of the two parallel trajectories with additional participatory activities, such as a dialogue meeting.
CONTEXT: Most initiatives for patient involvement in guideline development have been carried out for chronic diseases. The involvement of patients with incidental and non-threatening diseases is more complicated. Little knowledge is available on how these patient groups can successfully be involved in guideline development. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of the involvement of gynaecological patients in the guideline development for resumption of (work) activities after surgery. DESIGN: At three different stages patients were involved in the process: (i) three focus group discussions (FGDs) were organized, (ii) patients were involved for the instruction video, and (iii) patients tested the patient version of the clinical guideline. To assess the effectiveness, an evaluation framework was used. The guideline development process was divided into two parallel trajectories in which patients and professionals were consulted separately. Patients were primarily consulted for the development of the patient version, although their input also influenced the recommendations for resumption of (work) activities after surgery. Professionals were mainly involved in the development of the recommendations of the clinical guideline. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The involvement of gynaecological patients in the guideline development for resumption of (work) activities after surgery was successful in many respects. Consultation of individual patients by means of FGDs and with regular feedback moments has been rather effective for a guideline development process related to an incidental, non-threatening disease for which there is no patient organization. Patients' input contributed to applicability of the clinical guideline in daily practice. Increased patient involvement could be achieved by integration of the two parallel trajectories with additional participatory activities, such as a dialogue meeting.
Authors: Antoine Boivin; Kay Currie; Béatrice Fervers; Javier Gracia; Marian James; Catherine Marshall; Carol Sakala; Sylvia Sanger; Judi Strid; Victoria Thomas; Trudy van der Weijden; Richard Grol; Jako Burgers Journal: Qual Saf Health Care Date: 2010-04-27
Authors: Trudy van der Weijden; France Légaré; Antoine Boivin; Jako S Burgers; Haske van Veenendaal; Anne M Stiggelbout; Marjan Faber; Glyn Elwyn Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2010-02-02 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Antonie Vonk Noordegraaf; Judith A F Huirne; Hans A M Brölmann; Mark H Emanuel; Paul J M van Kesteren; Gunilla Kleiverda; Jos P Lips; Alexander Mozes; Andreas L Thurkow; Willem van Mechelen; Johannes R Anema Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2012-02-01 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Sean Grant; Glen S Hazlewood; Holly L Peay; Ann Lucas; Ian Coulter; Arlene Fink; Dmitry Khodyakov Journal: Patient Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 3.883
Authors: Jozette Jc Stienen; Petronella B Ottevanger; Lianne Wennekes; Helena M Dekker; Richard Wm van der Maazen; Caroline Mpw Mandigers; Johan Hjm van Krieken; Nicole Ma Blijlevens; Rosella Pmg Hermens Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2015-01-09
Authors: Eva van der Meij; Judith Af Huirne; Esther Va Bouwsma; Johanna M van Dongen; Caroline B Terwee; Peter M van de Ven; Chantal M den Bakker; Suzan van der Meij; W Marchien van Baal; Wouter Kg Leclercq; Peggy Maj Geomini; Esther Cj Consten; Steven E Schraffordt Koops; Paul Jm van Kesteren; Hein Bac Stockmann; A Dorien Ten Cate; Paul Hp Davids; Petrus C Scholten; Baukje van den Heuvel; Frederieke G Schaafsma; Wilhelmus Jhj Meijerink; H Jaap Bonjer; Johannes R Anema Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2016-12-21
Authors: Robert Michael Cronin; Tilicia L Mayo-Gamble; Sarah-Jo Stimpson; Sherif M Badawy; Lori E Crosby; Jeannie Byrd; Emmanuel J Volanakis; Adetola A Kassim; Jean L Raphael; Velma M Murry; Michael R DeBaun Journal: BMC Hematol Date: 2018-06-08
Authors: Esther Va Bouwsma; Johannes R Anema; Antonie Vonk Noordegraaf; Dirk L Knol; Judith E Bosmans; Steven E Schraffordt Koops; Paul Jm van Kesteren; W Marchien van Baal; Jos P Lips; Mark H Emanuel; Petrus C Scholten; Alexander Mozes; Albert H Adriaanse; Hans Am Brölmann; Judith Af Huirne Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2014-06-18
Authors: Esther V A Bouwsma; Johannes R Anema; A Vonk Noordegraaf; Henrica C W de Vet; Judith A F Huirne Journal: BMC Surg Date: 2017-12-06 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Eric M Mafuta; Marjolein A Dieleman; Leon Essink; Paul N Khomba; François M Zioko; Thérèse N M Mambu; Patrick K Kayembe; Tjard de Cock Buning Journal: Glob Health Res Policy Date: 2017-02-06