Dataset Information

Recommendations for patient engagement in guideline development panels: A qualitative focus group study of guideline-naive patients.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Patient and consumer engagement in clinical practice guideline development is internationally advocated, but limited research explores mechanisms for successful engagement.

Objective

To investigate the perspectives of potential patient/consumer guideline representatives on topics pertaining to engagement including guideline development group composition and barriers to and facilitators of engagement.

Setting and participants

Participants were guideline-naïve volunteers for programs designed to link community members to academic research with diverse ages, gender, race, and degrees of experience interacting with health care professionals.

Methods

Three focus groups and one key informant interview were conducted and analyzed using a qualitative descriptive approach.

Results

Participants recommended small, diverse guideline development groups engaging multiple patient/consumer stakeholders with no prior relationships with each other or professional panel members. No consensus was achieved on the ideal balance of patient/consumer and professional stakeholders. Pre-meeting reading/training and an identified contact person were described as keys to successful early engagement; skilled facilitators, understandable speech and language, and established mechanisms for soliciting patient opinions were suggested to enhance engagement at meetings.

Conclusions

Most suggestions for effective patient/consumer engagement in guidelines require forethought and planning but little additional expense, making these strategies easily accessible to guideline developers desiring to achieve more meaningful patient and consumer engagement.

SUBMITTER: Armstrong MJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5358846 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Recommendations for patient engagement in guideline development panels: A qualitative focus group study of guideline-naïve patients.

Armstrong Melissa J MJ Mullins C Daniel CD Gronseth Gary S GS Gagliardi Anna R AR

PloS one 20170320 3

<h4>Background</h4>Patient and consumer engagement in clinical practice guideline development is internationally advocated, but limited research explores mechanisms for successful engagement.<h4>Objective</h4>To investigate the perspectives of potential patient/consumer guideline representatives on topics pertaining to engagement including guideline development group composition and barriers to and facilitators of engagement.<h4>Setting and participants</h4>Participants were guideline-naïve volu ...[more]

PMID: 28319201

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Patient and public involvement (PPI) is recognized as a key component of clinical practice guideline development with important implications for guideline implementability. The impact of PPI on guidelines, however, has not been rigorously assessed. Better understanding of the impact of PPI must start with guideline question formation, which drives all subsequent development steps. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of PPI on guideline question formation and validate a conceptual model of patient and public contributions to guidelines. METHODS:For development of a clinical practice guideline on the topic of using amyloid positron emission tomography in the diagnosis of dementia, we convened two parallel guideline development groups, one with and one without patient representatives. Participating physicians were randomized to group assignment. Each group developed Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, Time (PICOT) questions and identified key benefits and harms to incorporate in guideline development. Analysis included a descriptive comparison of proposed PICOT questions, benefits, and harms between groups and a qualitative analysis of discussion themes from audio recordings of the question development retreats. RESULTS:Proposed guideline questions, benefits, and harms were largely similar between groups, but only the experimental group proposed outcomes relating to development of cognitive impairment at specific time points and rate of progression. The qualitative analysis of the discussions occurring during guideline question development demonstrated key differences in group conduct and validated the proposed conceptual model of patient and public contributions to guidelines. PPI influenced the conduct of guideline development, scope, inclusion of patient-relevant topics, outcome selection, and planned approaches to recommendation development, implementation, and dissemination with implications for both guideline developers and the guideline development process. CONCLUSIONS:Evidence of how PPI impacts guideline development underscores the importance of engaging patient stakeholders in guideline development and highlights developer- and guideline-specific outcomes of PPI, both of which have implications for guideline implementation. It also raises the question of whether guidelines developed without such input are acceptable for use. PPI should be considered an essential element of trustworthy guideline development for purposes of development and funding.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The inclusion of patient portals into electronic health records in the inpatient setting lags behind progress in the outpatient setting. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to understand patient perceptions of using a portal during an episode of acute care and explore patient-perceived barriers and facilitators to portal use during hospitalization. METHODS:We utilized a mixed methods approach to explore patient experiences in using the portal during hospitalization. All patients received a tablet with a brief tutorial, pre- and postuse surveys, and completed in-person semistructured interviews. Qualitative data were coded using thematic analysis to iteratively develop 18 codes that were integrated into 3 themes framed as patient recommendations to hospitals to improve engagement with the portal during acute care. Themes from these qualitative data guided our approach to the analysis of quantitative data. RESULTS:We enrolled 97 participants: 53 (53/97, 55%) women, 44 (44/97, 45%) nonwhite with an average age of 48 years (19-81 years), and the average length of hospitalization was 6.4 days. A total of 47 participants (47/97, 48%) had an active portal account, 59 participants (59/97, 61%) owned a smartphone, and 79 participants (79/97, 81%) accessed the internet daily. In total, 3 overarching themes emerged from the qualitative analysis of interviews with these patients during their hospital stay: (1) hospitals should provide both access to a device and bring-your-own-device platform to access the portal; (2) hospitals should provide an orientation both on how to use the device and how to use the portal; and (3) hospitals should ensure portal content is up to date and easy to understand. CONCLUSIONS:Patients independently and consistently identified basic needs for device and portal access, education, and usability. Hospitals should prioritize these areas to enable successful implementation of inpatient portals to promote greater patient engagement during acute care. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00102401; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01970852.

Project description:BackgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) is widely considered to be the new technical advancement capable of a large-scale modernization of health care. Considering AI's potential impact on the clinician-patient relationship, health care provision, and health care systems more widely, patients and the wider public should be a part of the development, implementation, and embedding of AI applications in health care. Failing to establish patient and public engagement and involvement (PPIE) can limit AI's impact.ObjectiveThis study aims to (1) understand patients' and the public's perceived benefits and challenges for AI and (2) clarify how to best conduct PPIE in projects on translating AI into clinical practice, given public perceptions of AI.MethodsWe conducted this qualitative PPIE focus-group consultation in the United Kingdom. A total of 17 public collaborators representing 7 National Institute of Health and Care Research Applied Research Collaborations across England participated in 1 of 3 web-based semistructured focus group discussions. We explored public collaborators' understandings, experiences, and perceptions of AI applications in health care. Transcripts were coanalyzed iteratively with 2 public coauthors using thematic analysis.ResultsWe identified 3 primary deductive themes with 7 corresponding inductive subthemes. Primary theme 1, advantages of implementing AI in health care, had 2 subthemes: system improvements and improve quality of patient care and shared decision-making. Primary theme 2, challenges of implementing AI in health care, had 3 subthemes: challenges with security, bias, and access; public misunderstanding of AI; and lack of human touch in care and decision-making. Primary theme 3, recommendations on PPIE for AI in health care, had 2 subthemes: experience, empowerment, and raising awareness; and acknowledging and supporting diversity in PPIE.ConclusionsPatients and the public can bring unique perspectives on the development, implementation, and embedding of AI in health care. Early PPIE is therefore crucial not only to safeguard patients but also to increase the chances of acceptance of AI by the public and the impact AI can make in terms of outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundDigital mental health interventions, such as 2-way and asynchronous messaging therapy, are a growing part of the mental health care treatment ecosystem, yet little is known about how users engage with these interventions over the course of their treatment journeys. User engagement, or client behaviors and therapeutic relationships that facilitate positive treatment outcomes, is a necessary condition for the effectiveness of any digital treatment. Developing a better understanding of the factors that impact user engagement can impact the overall effectiveness of digital psychotherapy. Mapping the user experience in digital therapy may be facilitated by integrating theories from several fields. Specifically, health science's Health Action Process Approach and human-computer interaction's Lived Informatics Model may be usefully synthesized with relational constructs from psychotherapy process-outcome research to identify the determinants of engagement in digital messaging therapy.ObjectiveThis study aims to capture insights into digital therapy users' engagement patterns through a qualitative analysis of focus group sessions. We aimed to synthesize emergent intrapersonal and relational determinants of engagement into an integrative framework of engagement in digital therapy.MethodsA total of 24 focus group participants were recruited to participate in 1 of 5 synchronous focus group sessions held between October and November 2021. Participant responses were coded by 2 researchers using thematic analysis.ResultsCoders identified 10 relevant constructs and 24 subconstructs that can collectively account for users' engagement and experience trajectories in the context of digital therapy. Although users' engagement trajectories in digital therapy varied widely, they were principally informed by intrapsychic factors (eg, self-efficacy and outcome expectancy), interpersonal factors (eg, the therapeutic alliance and its rupture), and external factors (eg, treatment costs and social support). These constructs were organized into a proposed Integrative Engagement Model of Digital Psychotherapy. Notably, every participant in the focus groups indicated that their ability to connect with their therapist was among the most important factors that were considered in continuing or terminating treatment.ConclusionsEngagement in messaging therapy may be usefully approached through an interdisciplinary lens, linking constructs from health science, human-computer interaction studies, and clinical science in an integrative engagement framework. Taken together, our results suggest that users may not view the digital psychotherapy platform itself as a treatment so much as a means of gaining access to a helping provider, that is, users did not see themselves as engaging with a platform but instead viewed their experience as a healing relationship. The findings of this study suggest that a better understanding of user engagement is crucial for enhancing the effectiveness of digital mental health interventions, and future research should continue to explore the underlying factors that contribute to engagement in digital mental health interventions.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04507360; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04507360.

Project description:DescriptionThis update of the 2010 International Consensus Recommendations on the Management of Patients With Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding (UGIB) refines previous important statements and presents new clinically relevant recommendations.MethodsAn international multidisciplinary group of experts developed the recommendations. Data sources included evidence summarized in previous recommendations, as well as systematic reviews and trials identified from a series of literature searches of several electronic bibliographic databases from inception to April 2018. Using an iterative process, group members formulated key questions. Two methodologists prepared evidence profiles and assessed quality (certainty) of evidence relevant to the key questions according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. Group members reviewed the evidence profiles and, using a consensus process, voted on recommendations and determined the strength of recommendations as strong or conditional.RecommendationsPreendoscopic management: The group suggests using a Glasgow Blatchford score of 1 or less to identify patients at very low risk for rebleeding, who may not require hospitalization. In patients without cardiovascular disease, the suggested hemoglobin threshold for blood transfusion is less than 80 g/L, with a higher threshold for those with cardiovascular disease. Endoscopic management: The group suggests that patients with acute UGIB undergo endoscopy within 24 hours of presentation. Thermocoagulation and sclerosant injection are recommended, and clips are suggested, for endoscopic therapy in patients with high-risk stigmata. Use of TC-325 (hemostatic powder) was suggested as temporizing therapy, but not as sole treatment, in patients with actively bleeding ulcers. Pharmacologic management: The group recommends that patients with bleeding ulcers with high-risk stigmata who have had successful endoscopic therapy receive high-dose proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy (intravenous loading dose followed by continuous infusion) for 3 days. For these high-risk patients, continued oral PPI therapy is suggested twice daily through 14 days, then once daily for a total duration that depends on the nature of the bleeding lesion. Secondary prophylaxis: The group suggests PPI therapy for patients with previous ulcer bleeding who require antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy for cardiovascular prophylaxis.