OBJECTIVE: How best to involve patients in the development of clinical practice guideline (CPG) recommendations is not known. We sought to determine the feasibility and value of developing CPG recommendations based on a voting panel composed entirely of patients, with the ultimate goal of comparing the patients' recommendations to ones developed by a physician-dominated voting panel on the same clinical questions. METHODS: Ten patients with rheumatoid arthritis completed 8 hours of training on evidence-based medicine and guideline development. They constituted a voting panel and, with 2 American College of Rheumatology staff with expertise in CPG development and a physician facilitator, subsequently met at a face-to-face meeting to develop recommendations. They applied the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to formulate recommendations on 18 questions for which there was evidence warranting moderate or high confidence. RESULTS: The patient panel developed recommendations for 16 of the 18 questions; for the other 2, the panel thought there were insufficient data to support a recommendation. For 13 of the 16 questions, the patient panel recommended the same course of action as did the physician-dominated panel. Differences were due to how the 2 panels valued the balance between benefits and harms. CONCLUSION: Patient and physician-dominated panels developed the same recommendations for most questions for which there was evidence warranting moderate to high confidence. Additional experiences are necessary to advance the evidence necessary to determine what panel composition is optimal to produce the best guidelines.
OBJECTIVE: How best to involve patients in the development of clinical practice guideline (CPG) recommendations is not known. We sought to determine the feasibility and value of developing CPG recommendations based on a voting panel composed entirely of patients, with the ultimate goal of comparing the patients' recommendations to ones developed by a physician-dominated voting panel on the same clinical questions. METHODS: Ten patients with rheumatoid arthritis completed 8 hours of training on evidence-based medicine and guideline development. They constituted a voting panel and, with 2 American College of Rheumatology staff with expertise in CPG development and a physician facilitator, subsequently met at a face-to-face meeting to develop recommendations. They applied the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to formulate recommendations on 18 questions for which there was evidence warranting moderate or high confidence. RESULTS: The patient panel developed recommendations for 16 of the 18 questions; for the other 2, the panel thought there were insufficient data to support a recommendation. For 13 of the 16 questions, the patient panel recommended the same course of action as did the physician-dominated panel. Differences were due to how the 2 panels valued the balance between benefits and harms. CONCLUSION:Patient and physician-dominated panels developed the same recommendations for most questions for which there was evidence warranting moderate to high confidence. Additional experiences are necessary to advance the evidence necessary to determine what panel composition is optimal to produce the best guidelines.
Authors: J L Brozek; E A Akl; P Alonso-Coello; D Lang; R Jaeschke; J W Williams; B Phillips; M Lelgemann; A Lethaby; J Bousquet; G H Guyatt; H J Schünemann Journal: Allergy Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 13.146
Authors: Gordon H Guyatt; Andrew D Oxman; Gunn E Vist; Regina Kunz; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Holger J Schünemann Journal: BMJ Date: 2008-04-26
Authors: Lilian H D van Tuyl; Josef S Smolen; George A Wells; Marieke Scholte-Voshaar; Wijnanda Hoogland; Maarten Boers Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2011-08 Impact factor: 4.666
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: Benjamin J Oldfield; Marcus A Harrison; Inginia Genao; Ann T Greene; Mary Ellen Pappas; Janis G Glover; Marjorie S Rosenthal Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-07-26 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Liana Fraenkel; Joan M Bathon; Bryant R England; E William St Clair; Thurayya Arayssi; Kristine Carandang; Kevin D Deane; Mark Genovese; Kent Kwas Huston; Gail Kerr; Joel Kremer; Mary C Nakamura; Linda A Russell; Jasvinder A Singh; Benjamin J Smith; Jeffrey A Sparks; Shilpa Venkatachalam; Michael E Weinblatt; Mounir Al-Gibbawi; Joshua F Baker; Kamil E Barbour; Jennifer L Barton; Laura Cappelli; Fatimah Chamseddine; Michael George; Sindhu R Johnson; Lara Kahale; Basil S Karam; Assem M Khamis; Iris Navarro-Millán; Reza Mirza; Pascale Schwab; Namrata Singh; Marat Turgunbaev; Amy S Turner; Sally Yaacoub; Elie A Akl Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2021-06-08 Impact factor: 5.178
Authors: Dmitry Khodyakov; Kathi Kinnett; Sean Grant; Ann Lucas; Ann Martin; Brian Denger; Holly Peay; Ian Coulter; Arlene Fink Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2017-04-28
Authors: Glen S Hazlewood; Deborah A Marshall; Claire E H Barber; Linda C Li; Cheryl Barnabe; Vivian Bykerk; Peter Tugwell; Pauline M Hull; Nick Bansback Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence Date: 2020-05-18 Impact factor: 2.711