IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v11y2018i2d10.1007_s40271-017-0280-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Practical Considerations for Using Online Methods to Engage Patients in Guideline Development

Author

Listed:
  • Sean Grant

    (RAND Corporation)

  • Glen S. Hazlewood

    (University of Calgary)

  • Holly L. Peay

    (RTI International)

  • Ann Lucas

    (Parent Project Muscular Dystrophy)

  • Ian Coulter

    (RAND Corporation)

  • Arlene Fink

    (University of California–Los Angeles)

  • Dmitry Khodyakov

    (RAND Corporation)

Abstract

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have been widely used in healthcare policy, practice, and for suggesting future research. As patients increasingly become involved in CPG development to produce patient-centered recommendations, more research is needed on methods to engage patients, particularly methods allowing for scalable engagement of large, diverse, and geographically distributed groups of patients. In this article, we discuss practical considerations for using online methods to engage patients in CPG development. To inform this discussion, we conducted a rapid, systematic review of literature on patient involvement in CPG development and used qualitative evidence synthesis techniques to make inferences about potential advantages and challenges of using online methods to engage patients in this context. We identified 79 articles containing information about involving patients in CPG development. Potential advantages include the ability of online methods to facilitate greater openness and honesty by patients, as well as to reflect the diversity of patient views, which in turn further improve the utility of CPGs. Potential challenges of using online methods may include the extra skill, time, and certain types of resources that may be needed for patient engagement, as well as the difficulty engaging specific patient populations. However, these challenges are mitigated by growing calls for patient engagement as normative for CPG development in addition to patients’ increasing familiarity with online technologies. These practical considerations should be examined empirically as guideline development groups further explore the appropriateness of using online methods to engage patients across different stages of CPG development.

Suggested Citation

  • Sean Grant & Glen S. Hazlewood & Holly L. Peay & Ann Lucas & Ian Coulter & Arlene Fink & Dmitry Khodyakov, 2018. "Practical Considerations for Using Online Methods to Engage Patients in Guideline Development," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 11(2), pages 155-166, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:11:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s40271-017-0280-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-017-0280-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-017-0280-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40271-017-0280-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Leela Barham, 2011. "Public and Patient Involvement at the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 4(1), pages 1-10, January.
    2. Stephanie R. Morain & Danielle M. Whicher & Nancy E. Kass & Ruth R. Faden, 2017. "Deliberative Engagement Methods for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 10(5), pages 545-552, October.
    3. Petra Boelens & Claire Taylor & Geoffrey Henning & Perla Marang-van de Mheen & Eloy Espin & Theo Wiggers & Jola Gore-Booth & Barbara Moss & Vincenzo Valentini & Cornelis Velde, 2014. "Involving Patients in a Multidisciplinary European Consensus Process and in the Development of a ‘Patient Summary of the Consensus Document for Colon and Rectal Cancer Care’," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 7(3), pages 261-270, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Olivia Magwood & Alison Riddle & Jennifer Petkovic & Lyubov Lytvyn & Joanne Khabsa & Pearl Atwere & Elie A. Akl & Pauline Campbell & Vivian Welch & Maureen Smith & Reem A. Mustafa & Heather Limburg & , 2022. "PROTOCOL: Barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in health guideline development: A qualitative evidence synthesis," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(2), June.
    2. Bonetti, Lisa & Lai, Alessandro & Stacchezzini, Riccardo, 2023. "Stakeholder engagement in the public utility sector: Evidence from Italian ESG reports," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    3. Dmitry Khodyakov & Sean Grant & Brian Denger & Kathi Kinnett & Ann Martin & Holly Peay & Ian Coulter, 2020. "Practical Considerations in Using Online Modified-Delphi Approaches to Engage Patients and Other Stakeholders in Clinical Practice Guideline Development," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 13(1), pages 11-21, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lopes, Edilene & Carter, Drew & Street, Jackie, 2015. "Power relations and contrasting conceptions of evidence in patient-involvement processes used to inform health funding decisions in Australia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 84-91.
    2. Dmitry Khodyakov & Sean Grant & Brian Denger & Kathi Kinnett & Ann Martin & Holly Peay & Ian Coulter, 2020. "Practical Considerations in Using Online Modified-Delphi Approaches to Engage Patients and Other Stakeholders in Clinical Practice Guideline Development," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 13(1), pages 11-21, February.
    3. Marlene Æ. Jensen & Mette N. Yilmaz & Birgith Pedersen, 2020. "Involving patients and nurses in choosing between two validated questionnaires to identify chemotherapy‐induced peripheral neuropathy before implementing in clinical practice—A qualitative study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(19-20), pages 3847-3859, October.
    4. Josie Messina & David Grainger, 2012. "A Pilot Study to Identify Areas for Further Improvements in Patient and Public Involvement in Health Technology Assessments for Medicines," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 5(3), pages 199-211, September.
    5. Paula K. Lorgelly, 2021. "Patient and Public Involvement in Health Economics and Outcomes Research," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(4), pages 379-380, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:11:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s40271-017-0280-6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.