Anja Fog Heen1, Per Olav Vandvik2, Linn Brandt3, Victor M Montori4, Lyubov Lytvyn5, Gordon Guyatt5, Casey Quinlan6, Thomas Agoritsas7. 1. Department of Medicine, Innlandet Hospital Trust, Gjøvik, Norway. Electronic address: anjaheen@gmail.com. 2. Institute for Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. 3. Department of Medicine, Innlandet Hospital Trust, Gjøvik, Norway. 4. Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 5. Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Ontario, Canada. 6. Mighty Casey Media LLC, Richmond, VA, USA. 7. Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Ontario, Canada; Division of General Internal Medicine, University Hospitals of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was to develop and test feasibility of a framework of patient-important practical issues. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Guidelines and shared decision-making tools help facilitate discussions about patient-important outcomes of care alternatives, but typically ignore practical issues patients consider when implementing care into their daily routines. Using grounded theory, practical issues in the HealthTalk.org registry and in Option Grids were identified and categorized into a framework. We integrated the framework into the MAGIC authoring and publication platform and digitally structured authoring and publication platform and appraised its use in The BMJ Rapid Recommendations. RESULTS: The framework included the following 15 categories: medication routine, tests and visits, procedure and device, recovery and adaptation, coordination of care, adverse effects, interactions and antidote, physical well-being, emotional well-being, pregnancy and nursing, costs and access, food and drinks, exercise and activities, social life and relationships, work and education, travel and driving. Implementation in 15 BMJ Rapid Recommendations added 283 issues to 35 recommendations. The most frequently used category was procedure and device, and the least frequent was social life and relationship. CONCLUSION: Adding practical issues systematically to evidence summaries is feasible and can inform guidelines and tools for shared decision-making. How this inclusion can improve patient-centered care remains to be determined.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was to develop and test feasibility of a framework of patient-important practical issues. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Guidelines and shared decision-making tools help facilitate discussions about patient-important outcomes of care alternatives, but typically ignore practical issues patients consider when implementing care into their daily routines. Using grounded theory, practical issues in the HealthTalk.org registry and in Option Grids were identified and categorized into a framework. We integrated the framework into the MAGIC authoring and publication platform and digitally structured authoring and publication platform and appraised its use in The BMJ Rapid Recommendations. RESULTS: The framework included the following 15 categories: medication routine, tests and visits, procedure and device, recovery and adaptation, coordination of care, adverse effects, interactions and antidote, physical well-being, emotional well-being, pregnancy and nursing, costs and access, food and drinks, exercise and activities, social life and relationships, work and education, travel and driving. Implementation in 15 BMJ Rapid Recommendations added 283 issues to 35 recommendations. The most frequently used category was procedure and device, and the least frequent was social life and relationship. CONCLUSION: Adding practical issues systematically to evidence summaries is feasible and can inform guidelines and tools for shared decision-making. How this inclusion can improve patient-centered care remains to be determined.
Authors: Anja Fog Heen; Per Olav Vandvik; Linn Brandt; Frankie Achille; Gordon Henry Guyatt; Elie A Akl; Shaun Treewek; Thomas Agoritsas Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2021-06-29 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Anja Fog Heen; Lyubov Lytvyn; Michael Shapiro; Gordon Henry Guyatt; Reed Alexander Cunningham Siemieniuk; Yuan Zhang; Veena Manja; Per Olav Vandvik; Thomas Agoritsas Journal: Heart Date: 2021-02-09 Impact factor: 5.994