Patient and public involvement in the development of clinical practice guidelines: a scoping review protocol

Opioid Prescribing for Acute Pain Management in Children and Adolescents in Outpatient Settings: Clinical Practice Guideline

This is the first clinical practice guideline (CPG) from the American Academy of Pediatrics outlining evidence-based approaches to safely prescribing opioids for acute pain in outpatient settings. The central goal is to aid clinicians in understanding when opioids may be indicated to treat acute pain in children and adolescents and how to minimize risks (including opioid use disorder, poisoning, and overdose). The document also seeks to alleviate disparate pain treatment of Black, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaska Native children and adolescents, who receive pain management that is less adequate and less timely than that provided to white individuals. There may also be disparities in pain treatment based on language, socioeconomic status, geographic location, and other factors, which are discussed. The document recommends that clinicians treat acute pain using a multimodal approach that includes the appropriate use of nonpharmacologic therapies, nonopioid medications, and, when needed, opioid medications. Opioids should not be prescribed as monotherapy for children or adolescents who have acute pain. When using opioids for acute pain management, clinicians should prescribe immediate-release opioid formulations, start with the lowest age- and weight-appropriate doses, and provide an initial supply of 5 or fewer days, unless the pain is related to trauma or surgery with expected duration of pain longer than 5 days. Clinicians should not prescribe codeine or tramadol for patients younger than 12 years; adolescents 12 to 18 years of age who have obesity, obstructive sleep apnea, or severe lung disease; to treat postsurgical pain after tonsillectomy or adenoidectomy in patients younger than 18 years; or for any breastfeeding patient. The CPG recommends providing opioids when appropriate for treating acutely worsened pain in children and adolescents who have a history of chronic pain; clinicians should partner with other opioid-prescribing clinicians involved in the patient's care and/or a specialist in chronic pain or palliative care to determine an appropriate treatment plan. Caution should be used when treating acute pain in those who are taking sedating medications. The CPG describes potential harms of discontinuing or rapidly tapering opioids in individuals who have been on stable, long-term opioids to treat chronic pain. The guideline also recommends providing naloxone and information on naloxone, safe storage and disposal of opioids, and direct observation of medication administration. Clinicians are encouraged to help caregivers develop a plan for safe disposal. The CPG contains 12 key action statements based on evidence from randomized controlled trials, high-quality observational studies, and, when studies are lacking or could not feasibly or ethically be conducted, from expert opinion. Each key action statement includes a level of evidence, the benefit-harm relationship, and the strength of recommendation.

Evaluating the participation of junior members and patient and healthcare professionals representatives in EULAR task forces: results from an international survey

OBJECTIVE

European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) task forces (TF) requires participation of ≥2 junior members, a health professional in rheumatology (HPR) and two patient research partners for the development of recommendations or points to consider. In this study, participation of these junior and representative members was compared with the one of traditional TF members (convenor, methodologist, fellow and expert TF members).

METHODS

An online survey was developed and emailed to previous EULAR TF members. The survey comprised multiple-choice, open-ended and 0-100 rating scale (fully disagree to fully agree) questions.

RESULTS

In total, 77 responded, 48 (62%) women. In total, 46 (60%) had participated as a junior or representative TF member. Most junior/representative members reported they felt unprepared for their first TF (10/14, 71%). Compared with traditional members, junior/representative members expressed a significantly higher level of uncertainty about their roles within the TF (median score 23 (IQR 7.0-52.0) vs 7 (IQR 0.0-21.0)), and junior/representative members felt less engaged by the convenor (54% vs 71%). Primary factors that facilitated interaction within a TF were experience, expertise and preparation (54%), a supportive atmosphere (42%) and a clear role (12%).

CONCLUSION

Juniors, patients and HPR experience various challenges when participating in a EULAR TF. These challenges differ from and are generally less pronounced than those experienced by traditional TF members. The convenor should introduce the participants to the tasks, emphasise the value of their contributions and how to prepare accordingly for the TF meeting.

Patient and public involvement in the development of clinical practice guidelines: a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

Organisations that develop clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) encourage involvement of patients and the publics in their development, however, there are no standard methodologies for doing so. To examine how CPGs report patient and public involvement (PPI), we conducted a scoping review of the evidence addressing the following four questions: (1) who are the patients and publics involved in developing the CPG?; (2) from where and how are the patients and publics recruited?; (3) at what stage in the CPG development process are the patients and publics involved? and (4) how do the patients and publics contribute their views? We also extracted data on the use of PPI reporting checklists by the included studies.

DESIGN

We used the methodology developed by Arksey and O'Malley and refined by the Joanna Briggs Institute. We searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO, websites of national guideline bodies from the UK, Canada, Australia and the USA, and conducted a forward citation search. No language, date or participant demographics restrictions were applied. Data were synthesised narratively.

RESULTS

We included 47 studies addressing 1 or more of the 4 questions. All included studies reported who the patient and publics involved (PPI members) were, and several studies reported PPI members from different groups. Patients were reported in 43/47 studies, advocates were reported in 22/47 studies, patients and advocates reported in 17/47 studies, and general public reported in 2/47 studies. Thirty-four studies reported from where the patients and publics were recruited, with patient groups being the most common (20/34). Stage of involvement was reported by 42/47 studies, most commonly at question identification (26/42) and draft review (18/42) stages. Forty-two studies reported how the patients contributed, most commonly via group meetings (18/42) or individual interviews. Ten studies cited or used a reporting checklist to report findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Our scoping review has revealed knowledge gaps to inform future research in several ways: replication, terminology and inclusion. First, no standard approach to PPI in CPG development could be inferred from the research. Second, inconsistent terminology to describe patients and publics reduces clarity around which patients and publics have been involved in developing CPGs. Finally, the under-representation of research describing PPI in the development of screening, as opposed to treatment, CPGs warrants further attention.