Dataset Information

Role of patient preferences in clinical practice guidelines: a multiple methods study using guidelines from oncology as a case.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:Many treatment decisions are preference-sensitive and call for shared decision-making, notably when benefits are limited or uncertain, and harms impact quality of life. We explored if clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) acknowledge preference-sensitive decisions in how they motivate and phrase their recommendations. DESIGN:We performed a qualitative analysis of the content of CPGs and verified the results in semistructured interviews with CPG panel members. SETTING:Dutch oncology CPGs issued in 2010 or later, concerning primary treatment with curative intent. PARTICIPANTS:14 CPG panel members. MAIN OUTCOMES:For treatment recommendations from six CPG modules, two researchers extracted the following: strength of recommendation in terms of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation and its consistency with the CPG text; completeness of presentation of benefits and harms; incorporation of patient preferences; statements on the panel's benefits-harm trade-off underlying recommendation; and advice on patient involvement in decision-making. RESULTS:We identified 32 recommendations, 18 were acknowledged preference-sensitive decisions. Three of 14 strong recommendations should have been weak based on the module text. The reporting of benefits and harms, and their probabilities, was sufficiently complete and clear to inform the strength of the recommendation in one of the six modules only. Numerical probabilities were seldom presented. None of the modules presented information on patient preferences. CPG panel's preferences were not made explicit, but appeared to have impacted 15 of 32 recommendations. Advice to involve patients and their preferences in decision-making was given for 20 recommendations (14 weak). Interviewees confirmed these findings. Explanations for lack of information were, for example, that clinicians know the information and that CPGs must be short. Explanations for trade-offs made were cultural-historical preferences, compliance with daily care, presumed role of CPGs and lack of time. CONCLUSIONS:The motivation and phrasing of CPG recommendations do not stimulate choice awareness and a neutral presentation of options, thus hindering shared decision-making.

SUBMITTER: Gartner FR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6924854 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Role of patient preferences in clinical practice guidelines: a multiple methods study using guidelines from oncology as a case.

Gärtner Fania R FR Portielje Johanneke E JE Langendam Miranda M Hairwassers Desiree D Agoritsas Thomas T Gijsen Brigitte B Liefers Gerrit-Jan GJ Pieterse Arwen H AH Stiggelbout Anne M AM

BMJ open 20191205 12

<h4>Objective</h4>Many treatment decisions are preference-sensitive and call for shared decision-making, notably when benefits are limited or uncertain, and harms impact quality of life. We explored if clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) acknowledge preference-sensitive decisions in how they motivate and phrase their recommendations.<h4>Design</h4>We performed a qualitative analysis of the content of CPGs and verified the results in semistructured interviews with CPG panel members.<h4>Setting</h ...[more]

PMID: 31811009

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOncologists who author clinical practice guidelines frequently have financial relationships with the pharmaceutical industry. It is unknown whether participation on clinical practice guideline committees is associated with differences in the amounts of industry money received.Materials and methodsWe conducted a nested case-control study from August 2013 to December 2018. We manually abstracted membership records of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines committees for the 20 most common cancers and linked to Open Payments. The study sample included medical oncologists selected to join an NCCN Guidelines committee ("joiners") during the study period. Joiners were matched 1:2 to medical oncologists who had no participation on NCCN committees (controls) by gender, NCCN institution, and medical school graduation year. We performed difference-in-differences (DiD) estimation to assess whether selection to an NCCN committee was associated with the dollar value of payments received from industry, using generalized estimating equations to address correlation between matched pairs and between repeated observations of the same pair.ResultsDuring the study period, 54 physicians joined an NCCN Guidelines committee. These physicians received more payments than matched controls in the year prior to joining ($11,259 vs. $3,427; p = .02); this difference did not increase in the year after joining (DiD = $731; p = .45).ConclusionMedical oncologists selected to NCCN Guidelines committees had greater financial ties to industry than their peers. The potential influence of industry in oncology clinical practice guidelines may be reduced through the selection of committee members with fewer ties to industry.Implications for practiceOncologists who author clinical practice guidelines frequently have financial conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry. This creates concern about the potential for industry influence on guidelines. However, it is unknown whether oncologists who author guidelines have greater industry relationships than their peers. This study compared medical oncologists who were newly selected to join a National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines panel with medical oncologists at the same institutions and at similar career stages. At the time they joined, oncologists joining NCCN Guidelines panels had received more than three times the dollar value of industry payments than their peers. The potential for industry influence may be reduced by the selection of less-conflicted panel members.

Project description:BackgroundSignificant resources are required to write de novo clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). There are many freely-available CPGs internationally, for many health conditions. Developing countries rarely have the resources for de novo CPGs, and there could be efficiencies in using CPGs developed elsewhere. This paper outlines a novel process developed and tested in a resource-constrained country (South Africa) to synthesise findings from multiple international CPGs on allied health (AH) stroke rehabilitation.MethodsMethodologists, policy-makers, content experts and consumers collaborated to describe the pathway of an 'average' stroke patient through the South African public healthcare system and pose questions about best-practice stroke rehabilitation along this pathway. A comprehensive search identified international guidance documents published since January 2010. These were scanned for relevance to the South African AH stroke rehabilitation questions and critically appraised for methodological quality. Recommendations were extracted from guidance documents for each question. Strength of the body of evidence (SoBE) gradings underpinning recommendations were standardised, and composite recommendations were developed using qualitative synthesis. An algorithm was developed to guide assignment of overall SoBE gradings to composite recommendations.ResultsSixteen CPGs were identified, and all were included, as they answered different project questions differently. Methodological quality varied and was unrelated to currency. Seven clusters, outlining 20 composite recommendations were proposed (organise for best practice rehabilitation, operationalise strategies for best practice communication throughout the patient journey, admit to an acute hospital, refer to inpatient rehabilitation, action inpatient rehabilitation, discharge from inpatient rehabilitation and longer-term community-based rehabilitation).ConclusionThe methodological development process, tested by writing a South African AH stroke rehabilitation guideline from existing evidence sources, took 9 months. The process was efficient, collaborative, effective, rewarding and positive. Using the proposed methods, similar synthesis of existing evidence could be conducted in shorter time periods, in other resource-constrained countries, avoiding the need for expensive and time-consuming de novo CPG development.

Project description:IntroductionAssessing the process used to synthesize the evidence in clinical practice guidelines enables users to determine the trustworthiness of the recommendations. Clinicians are increasingly dependent on guidelines to keep up with vast quantities of medical literature, and guidelines are followed to avoid malpractice suits. We aimed to assess whether systematic methods were used when synthesizing the evidence for guidelines; and to determine the type of review cited in support of recommendations.MethodsGuidelines published in 2017 and 2018 were retrieved from the TRIP and Epistemonikos databases. We randomly sorted and sequentially screened clinical guidelines on all topics to select the first 50 that met our inclusion criteria. Our primary outcomes were the number of guidelines using either a systematic or non-systematic process to gather, assess, and synthesise evidence; and the numbers of recommendations within guidelines based on different types of evidence synthesis (systematic or non-systematic reviews). If a review was cited, we looked for evidence that it was critically appraised, and recorded which quality assessment tool was used. Finally, we examined the relation between the use of the GRADE approach, systematic review process, and type of funder.ResultsOf the 50 guidelines, 17 (34%) systematically synthesised the evidence to inform recommendations. These 17 guidelines clearly reported their objectives and eligibility criteria, conducted comprehensive search strategies, and assessed the quality of the studies. Of the 29/50 guidelines that included reviews, 6 (21%) assessed the risk of bias of the review. The quality of primary studies was reported in 30/50 (60%) guidelines.ConclusionsHigh quality, systematic review products provide the best available evidence to inform guideline recommendations. Using non-systematic methods compromises the validity and reliability of the evidence used to inform guideline recommendations, leading to potentially misleading and untrustworthy results.

Dataset Information

Role of patient preferences in clinical practice guidelines: a multiple methods study using guidelines from oncology as a case.

Publications

Role of patient preferences in clinical practice guidelines: a multiple methods study using guidelines from oncology as a case.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets