Display options
Cite
Armstrong MJ, Bloom JA. Patient involvement in guidelines is poor five years after institute of medicine standards: review of guideline methodologies. Res Involv Engagem. 2017;3:19doi: 10.1186/s40900-017-0070-2.
Armstrong, M. J., & Bloom, J. A. (2017). Patient involvement in guidelines is poor five years after institute of medicine standards: review of guideline methodologies. Research involvement and engagement, 319. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-017-0070-2
Armstrong, Melissa J, and Bloom, Joshua A. "Patient involvement in guidelines is poor five years after institute of medicine standards: review of guideline methodologies." Research involvement and engagement vol. 3 (2017): 19. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-017-0070-2
Armstrong MJ, Bloom JA. Patient involvement in guidelines is poor five years after institute of medicine standards: review of guideline methodologies. Res Involv Engagem. 2017 Oct 02;3:19. doi: 10.1186/s40900-017-0070-2. eCollection 2017. PMID: 29062544; PMCID: PMC5623959.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Res Involv Engagem. 2017 Oct 02;3:19. doi: 10.1186/s40900-017-0070-2. eCollection 2017.

Patient involvement in guidelines is poor five years after institute of medicine standards: review of guideline methodologies.

Research involvement and engagement

Melissa J Armstrong, Joshua A Bloom

Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL USA.
  2. University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL 32610 USA.

PMID: 29062544 PMCID: PMC5623959 DOI: 10.1186/s40900-017-0070-2

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The United States-based Institute of Medicine 2011 standards for trustworthy clinical practice guideline development recommended patient and public involvement in guideline development via participation by patients and public representatives on guideline development groups and via external review and public comment strategies. Guideline developer compliance with these standards has not been assessed. This study aimed to identify the frequency with which United States guideline developers are employing participation, consultation, and communication patient and public involvement strategies.

METHODS: Two reviewers independently extracted current patient and public involvement strategies of independent guideline developers, either (1) an organizational member of the Guidelines-International-Network North America and/or (2) having ≥2 guidelines in the National Guideline Clearinghouse between March 2011 and November 2015. Publicly available information was extracted from guideline developers' websites, methodology manuals, and guidelines between November 2015 and December 2016. Disagreements were resolved by discussion.

RESULTS: Of 101 organizations meeting inclusion criteria, only 8% require patient/public involvement on guideline development groups; 15% sometimes require it or describe it as optional. Only 24% always utilize public comment on draft guidelines; 13% engage patients/public in external review at least some of the time. Twenty percent of developers create patient-targeted guideline products.

CONCLUSIONS: There remains a substantial gap between patient/public involvement standards for guideline development and practice in the United States, even 5 years after publication of Institute of Medicine standards. This is a missed opportunity, as patient and public contributions to guideline development include assessing guideline priorities, introducing new topics, identifying key populations and outcomes, informing whether findings are meaningful, prompting holistic approaches to care, assessing how recommendations interact with patient values, and writing plain-language guideline versions. Guideline developers must commit to prioritizing patient and public involvement as one element of trustworthy guideline development.

Keywords: Guidelines; Patient engagement; Patient participation; Patient-centered care

References

  1. CMAJ. 2010 Dec 14;182(18):E839-42 - PubMed
  2. Health Expect. 2012 Dec;15(4):410-23 - PubMed
  3. Implement Sci. 2011 Mar 22;6:26 - PubMed
  4. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Apr;64(4):395-400 - PubMed
  5. BMJ. 2016 Jun 30;353:i2089 - PubMed
  6. Int J Qual Health Care. 2016 Jun;28(3):299-305 - PubMed
  7. Health Expect. 2015 Oct;18(5):1151-66 - PubMed
  8. N Engl J Med. 2003 Jun 26;348(26):2635-45 - PubMed
  9. Health Care Anal. 2009 Sep;17(3):198-216 - PubMed
  10. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2017 Jan 13;17 (1):9 - PubMed
  11. Implement Sci. 2008 Dec 17;3:54 - PubMed
  12. Health Expect. 2017 Feb;20(1):3-10 - PubMed
  13. Qual Health Care. 2001 Mar;10(1):10-6 - PubMed
  14. Med Decis Making. 2011 Nov-Dec;31(6):E45-74 - PubMed
  15. JAMA Intern Med. 2013 Sep 23;173(17):1573-81 - PubMed
  16. Ann Intern Med. 2012 Apr 3;156(7):525-31 - PubMed

Publication Types

Grant support