How do guideline developers identify, incorporate and report patient preferences? An international cross-sectional survey

Values and preferences in COVID-19 public health guidelines: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Internationally accepted standards for trustworthy guidelines include the necessity to ground recommendations in values and preferences. Considering values and preferences respects the rights of citizens to participate in health decision-making and ensures that guidelines align with the needs and priorities of the communities they are intended to serve. Early anecdotal reports suggest that COVID-19 public health guidelines did not consider values and preferences. To capture and characterize whether and how COVID-19 public health guidelines considered values and preferences.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of COVID-19 public health guidelines. We searched the eCOVID-19 RecMap platform-a comprehensive international catalog of COVID-19 guidelines-up to July 2023 and the Guidelines International Network Library-an international library of guidelines published or endorsed by Guidelines International Network member organizations-up to May 2024. We included guidelines that made recommendations addressing vaccination, masking, isolation, lockdowns, travel restrictions, contact tracing, infection surveillance, and school closures. Reviewers worked independently and in duplicate to review guidelines for consideration of values and preferences.

RESULTS

Our search yielded 130 eligible guidelines, of which 41 (31.5%) were published by national organizations, 70 (53.8%) by international organizations, and 19 (14.6%) by professional societies and associations. Twenty-eight (21.5%) guidelines considered values and preferences. Among guidelines that considered values and preferences, most did so to assess the acceptability of recommendations (23; 82.1%) and by referencing published research (25; 89.3%). Guidelines only occasionally engaged laypersons as part of the guideline development group (8; 28.6%). None of the guidelines performed systematic reviews of the literature addressing values and preferences.

CONCLUSION

Most COVID-19 public health guidelines did not consider values and preferences. When they were considered, it was often suboptimal. Disregard for values and preferences might have partly contributed to divisive and unpopular COVID-19 policies. Given the possibility of future health emergencies, we recommend guideline developers identify efficient and effective methods for considering values and preferences in crisis situations.

New horizons in clinical practice guidelines for use with older people

Globally, more people are living into advanced old age, with age-associated frailty, disability and multimorbidity. Achieving equity for all ages necessitates adapting healthcare systems. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have an important place in adapting evidence-based medicine and clinical care to reflect these changing needs. CPGs can facilitate better and more systematic care for older people. But they can also present a challenge to patient-centred care and shared decision-making when clinical and/or socioeconomic heterogeneity or personal priorities are not reflected in recommendations or in their application. Indeed, evidence is often lacking to enable this variability to be reflected in guidance. Evidence is more likely to be lacking about some sections of the population. Many older adults are at the intersection of many factors associated with exclusion from traditional clinical evidence sources with higher incidence of multimorbidity and disability compounded by poorer healthcare access and ultimately worse outcomes. We describe these challenges and illustrate how they can adversely affect CPG scope, the evidence available and its summation, the content of CPG recommendations and their patient-centred implementation. In all of this, we take older adults as our focus, but much of what we say will be applicable to other marginalised groups. Then, using the established process of formulating a CPG as a framework, we consider how these challenges can be mitigated, with particular attention to applicability and implementation. We consider why CPG recommendations on the same clinical areas may be inconsistent and describe approaches to ensuring that CPGs remain up to date.

Best practice for the selection, design and implementation of UK Kidney Association guidelines: a modified Delphi consensus approach

BACKGROUND

Despite research into how to effectively implement evidence-based recommendations into clinical practice, a lack of standardisation in the commissioning and development of clinical practice guidelines can lead to inconsistencies and gaps in implementation. This research aimed to ascertain how topics in kidney care worthy of guideline development within the UK should be chosen, prioritised, designed and implemented.

METHODS

Following a modified Delphi methodology, a multi-disciplinary panel of experts in kidney healthcare from across the UK developed 35 statements on the issues surrounding the selection, development and implementation of nephrology guidelines. Consensus with these statements was determined by agreement using an online survey; the consensus threshold was defined as 75% agreement.

RESULTS

419 responses were received. Of the 364 healthcare practitioners (HCPs), the majority had over 20 years of experience in their role (n=123) and most respondents were nephrologists (n=95). Of the 55 non-clinical respondents, the majority were people with kidney disease (n=41) and the rest were their carers or family. Participants were from across England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Consensus between HCPs was achieved in 32/35 statements, with 28 statements reaching ≥90% agreement. Consensus between patients and patient representatives was achieved across all 20 statements, with 13/20 reaching ≥90% agreement.

CONCLUSIONS

The current results have provided the basis for six recommendations to improve the selection, design and implementation of guidelines. Actioning these recommendations will help improve the accessibility of, and engagement with, clinical guidelines, contributing to the continuing development of best practice in UK kidney care.

Exit Strategy: Balancing the Risks and Rewards of Antiseizure Medication Withdrawal

The majority of people with epilepsy achieves long-term seizure-freedom and may consider withdrawal of their anti-seizure medications (ASMs). Withdrawal of ASMs can yield substantial benefits but may be associated with potential risks. This review critically examines the existing literature on ASM withdrawal, emphasizing evidence-based recommendations, where available. Our focus encompasses deprescribing strategies for individuals who have attained seizure freedom through medical treatment, those who have undergone successful epilepsy surgery, and individuals initiated on ASMs following acute symptomatic seizures. We explore state-of-the-art prognostic models in these scenarios that could guide the decision-making process. The review underscores the importance of a collaborative shared-decision approach between patients, caregivers, and physicians. We describe the subjective and objective factors influencing these decisions and illustrate how trade-offs may be effectively managed in practice.

Adherence to evidence-based implementation of antimicrobial treatment guidelines among prescribers in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Adherence to evidence-based standard treatment guidelines (STGs) enable healthcare providers to deliver consistently appropriate diagnosis and treatment. Irrational use of antimicrobials significantly contributes to antimicrobial resistance in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA).  The best available evidence is needed to guide healthcare providers on adherence to evidence-based implementation of STGs. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the pooled prevalence of adherence to evidence-based implementation of antimicrobial treatment guidelines among prescribers in SSA.

METHODS

The review followed the JBI methodology for systematic reviews of prevalence data. CINAHL, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched with no language and publication year limitations. STATA version 17 were used for meta-analysis. The publication bias and heterogeneity were assessed using Egger's test and the I2 statistics. Heterogeneity and publication bias were validated using Duval and Tweedie's nonparametric trim and fill analysis using the random-effect analysis. The summary prevalence and the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) of healthcare professionals' compliance with evidence-based implementation of STG were estimated using random effect model. The review protocol has been registered with PROSPERO code CRD42023389011. The PRISMA flow diagram and checklist were used to report studies included, excluded and their corresponding section in the manuscript.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies with a total of 17,017 study participants from 14 countries in sub-Saharan Africa were included. The pooled prevalence of adherence to evidence-based implementation of antimicrobial treatment guidelines in SSA were 45%. The pooled prevalence of the most common clinical indications were respiratory tract (35%) and gastrointestinal infections (18%). Overall prescriptions per wards were inpatients (14,413) and outpatients (12,845). Only 391 prescribers accessed standard treatment guidelines during prescription of antimicrobials.

CONCLUSIONS

Healthcare professionals' adherence to evidence-based implementation of STG for antimicrobial treatment were low in SSA. Healthcare systems in SSA must make concerted efforts to enhance prescribers access to STGs through optimization of mobile clinical decision support applications. Innovative, informative, and interactive strategies must be in place by the healthcare systems in SSA to empower healthcare providers to make evidence-based clinical decisions informed by the best available evidence and patient preferences, to ultimately improving patient outcomes and promoting appropriate antimicrobial use.

A novel framework for incorporating patient values and preferences in making guideline recommendations: guideline panel surveys

OBJECTIVE

Universally acknowledged standards for trustworthy guidelines include the necessity to ground recommendations in patient values and preferences. When information is limited-which is typically the case-guideline panels often find it difficult to explicitly integrate patient values and preferences into their recommendations. Our objective was to develop and evaluate a framework for systematically navigating guideline panels in incorporating patient values and preferences in making recommendations.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

In the context of developing a guideline for colorectal cancer screening, we generated an initial framework for creating panel surveys to elicit guideline panelists' views of patient values and preferences and to inform panel discussions on recommendations. With further applications in guidelines of diverse topic areas, we dynamically refined the framework through iterative discussions and consensus.

RESULTS

The finial framework consists of five steps for creating and implementing panel surveys. The surveys can serve three objectives following from the quantitative information regarding patient values and preferences that guideline panels usually require. An accompanying video provides detailed instructions of the survey.

CONCLUSION

The framework for creating and implementing panel surveys offers explicit guidance for guideline panels considering transparently and systematically incorporating patient values and preferences into guideline recommendations.

Qualitative study of guideline panelists: innovative surveys provided valuable insights regarding patient values and preferences

OBJECTIVES

To explore guideline panelists' understanding of panel surveys for eliciting panels' inferences regarding patient values and preferences, and the influence of the surveys on making recommendations.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We performed sampling and data collection from all four guideline panels that had conducted the surveys through October 2020. We collected the records of all panel meetings and interviewed some panelists in different roles. We applied inductive thematic analysis for analyzing and interpreting data.

RESULTS

We enrolled four guideline panels with 99 panelists in total and interviewed 25 of them. Most panelists found the survey was easy to follow and facilitated the incorporation of patient values and preferences in the tradeoffs between benefits and harms or burdens. The variation of patient preferences and uncertainty regarding patient values and preferences reflected in the surveys helped the panels ponder the strength of recommendations. In doing so, the survey results enhanced a rationale for panels' decision on the recommendations.

CONCLUSION

The panel surveys have proved to help guideline panels explicitly consider and incorporate patient values and preferences in making recommendations. Guideline panels would benefit from widespread use of the panel surveys, particularly when primary evidence regarding patient values and preferences is scarce.

Patient preferences for epilepsy treatment: a systematic review of discrete choice experimental studies

BACKGROUND

This review aimed to 1) identify and assess the quality of discrete choice experiments (DCEs) examining preferences related to epilepsy treatment; 2) summarize the attributes and attribute levels measured in these studies; 3) identify how researchers selected and developed these attributes; and 4) identify which attributes are most important for epilepsy patients.

METHODS

A systematic literature review using PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus databases from database inception to February or April 2022. We included primary discrete-choice experiments eliciting preferences for various attributes of pharmacological and surgical interventions in patients diagnosed with epilepsy or the parents/carers of children with epilepsy. We excluded non- primary studies, studies assessing preferences for nonpharmacological treatment and studies that elicit preferences using methods other than discrete choice experiments. Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of studies. The quality of the included studies was assessed using two validated checklists. Study characteristics and findings were summarized descriptively.

RESULTS

A total of seven studies were included in the review. The majority of studies explored patients' preferences, and two compared the preferences of patients with physicians. The majority (n = 6) compared two medications, and one compared two surgical options to continuing medication options. The studies examined 44 attributes in total, including side effects (n = 26), efficacy expressed as being seizure free or have fewer seizures (n = 8), costs (n = 3), dosing frequency (n = 3), duration of side effects (n = 2), mortality (n = 1), long-term problems after surgery (n = 1) and surgical options (n = 1). The findings indicate that people with epilepsy have strong preferences for improving seizure control, which was ranked as the top priority in all studies. Patients also have a strong preference for the reduction of adverse effects and may be willing to make trade-offs between improved seizure control and reduction of long-term side effects that may impact their quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of DCEs in measuring patients' preference for epilepsy treatment is accumulating. However, inadequate reporting of methodological details may reduce decision-makers' confidence in the findings. Suggestions for future research are provided.

Guideline development in harm reduction: Considerations around the meaningful involvement of people who access services

Background

Harm reduction seeks to minimizes the negative effects of drug use while respecting the rights of people with lived and living experience of substance use (PWLLE). Guideline standards ("guidelines for guidelines") provide direction on developing healthcare guidelines. To identify essential considerations for guideline development within harm reduction, we examined whether guideline standards are consistent with a harm reduction approach in their recommendations on involving people who access services.

Methods

We searched the literature from 2011-2021 to identify guideline standards used in harm reduction and publications on involving PWLLE in developing harm reduction services. We used thematic analysis to compare their guidance on involving people who access services. Findings were validated with two organizations of PWLLE.

Results

Six guideline standards and 18 publications met inclusion criteria. We identified three themes related to involving people who access services: Reasons for Involvement, Methods of Involvement, and Factors in Success. Subthemes varied across the literature. We identified five essential considerations for guideline development in harm reduction: establishing a shared understanding of reasons for involving PWLLE; respecting their expertise; partnering with PWLLE to ensure appropriate engagement; incorporating perspectives of populations disproportionately affected by substance use; and securing resources.

Conclusion

Guideline standards and the harm reduction literature approach the involvement of people who access services from different perspectives. Thoughtful integration of the two paradigms can improve guidelines while empowering PWLLE. Our findings can support the development of high-quality guidelines that align with the fundamental principles of harm reduction in their involvement of PWLLE.

Developing guideline-based key performance indicators for recurrent miscarriage care: lessons from a multi-stage consensus process with a diverse stakeholder group

BACKGROUND

Standardised care pathways tailored to women/couples who experience recurrent miscarriage are needed; however, clinical practice is inconsistent and poorly organised. In this paper, we outline our processes and experiences of developing guideline-based key performance indicators (KPIs) for recurrent miscarriage care with a diverse stakeholder group which will be used to evaluate national services. To date, such exercises have generally only involved clinicians, with the need for greater stakeholder involvement highlighted.

METHODS

Our study involved six stages: (i) identification and synthesis of recommendations for recurrent miscarriage care through a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines; (ii) a two-round modified e-Delphi survey with stakeholders to develop consensus on recommendations and outcomes; (iii) four virtual meetings to develop this consensus further; (iv) development of a list of candidate KPIs; (v) survey to achieve consensus on the final suite of KPIs and a (vi) virtual meeting to agree on the final set of KPIs. Through participatory methods, participants provided feedback on the process of KPI development.

RESULTS

From an initial list of 373 recommendations and 14 outcomes, 110 indicators were prioritised for inclusion in the final suite of KPIs: (i) structure of care (n = 20); (ii) counselling and supportive care (n = 7); (iii) investigations (n = 30); treatment (n = 34); outcomes (n = 19). Participants' feedback on the process comprised three main themes: accessibility, richness in diversity, streamlining the development process.

CONCLUSIONS

It is important and feasible to develop guideline-based KPIs with a diverse stakeholder group. One hundred and ten KPIs were prioritised for inclusion in a suite of guideline-based KPIs for recurrent miscarriage care. Insights into our experiences may help others undertaking similar projects, particularly those undertaken in the absence of a clinical guideline and/or involving a range of stakeholders.

Women Tell All: A Comparative Thematic Analysis of Women's Perspectives on Two Brief Counseling Interventions for Intimate Partner Violence

Background: Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a significant public health problem that is commonly experienced by women and associated with psychosocial health issues. Recovering from IPV through Strengths and Empowerment (RISE) is a brief, clinician-administered, variable-length (1–6 sessions), modular, individualized psychosocial counseling intervention developed for women experiencing IPV. We present qualitative feedback and quantitative helpfulness ratings from women patients of the Veterans Health Administration who completed a randomized clinical trial (RCT) comparing RISE to a clinician-administered advocacy-based Enhanced Care as Usual (ECAU; a single structured session consisting of psychoeducation, safety-planning, resources, and referrals). Methods: 58 participants (_Mage = 39.21) completed post-intervention semi-structured qualitative interviews, including helpfulness ratings, at two follow-up assessments (10- and 14-weeks post-enrollment) to assess the acceptability, usefulness, and perceived fit of the interventions for women’s needs. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed using a hybrid deductive-inductive analytic approach. Results: While both the RISE and ECAU interventions were deemed helpful (interventions were rated as ‘highly helpful’ by 77% of RISE and 52% of ECAU participants), differences were identified in perceived impacts of the intervention, application of content, approach to patient-centeredness, and implementation recommendations. Conclusions: Findings shed light on women Veterans’ experiences and preferences for IPV psychosocial counseling interventions. Such knowledge can inform evidence-based, trauma-informed, and individualized care for women Veterans who experience IPV and may have relevance to other populations of women who experience IPV.

Trends in the development process of clinical practice guidelines: a questionnaire survey for the guideline development groups in Japan

Background

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are representative methods for promoting healthcare standardization and improving its quality. Previous studies on the CPG (published by 2006) development process in Japan reported that the involvement of experts and patients, efficient evidence collection and appraisal, and paucity of evidence on Japanese patients should be improved for the efficient CPG development. This study aimed to clarify the trends of CPG development process in Japan, focusing on the involvement of experts and patients, efficient evidence collection and appraisal, and paucity of Japanese evidence.

Methods

A cross-sectional questionnaire survey was conducted for CPG development groups to collect information on the development activities of the CPGs published from 2012 to 2019. These CPGs were identified from the Japanese guideline clearinghouse. The questionnaire included the questions on composing the group, securing funding sources, collecting and appraising the research evidence, and the difficulties in the CPG development process. The questionnaires were distributed to the chairpersons of the CPG development groups through postal mail from November 2020 to January 2021. Combining the data from the current survey with those of previous studies reporting the development process of CPGs published by 2011, we analyzed the trend in the CPG development process.

Results

Of the total 265 CPGs included in the analysis, 164 (response rate: 41.4%) were from the current survey and 101 (response rate: 44.5%) were from previous studies. Among these, 40 (15.1%) were published by 2005, 47 (17.7%) in 2006–2010, 77 (29.1%) in 2011–2015, and 101 (38.1%) in 2016–2019. The proportion of CPGs involving methodologists did not increase through the publication periods. The proportion of CPGs involving patients almost doubled from the first period (15.9%) to the fourth period (32.4%). The yield rates of the articles did not change through the publication periods. The difficulty in “Coping with the paucity of Japanese evidence” has been improving consistently (69.2% in the first period to 37.4% in the fourth period).

Conclusions

Our results suggest the need for methodological improvement in the efficient collection and appraisal of evidence and in the system assigning experts to the CPG development groups.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-07492-7.

An exploration of the perspectives of individuals and their caregivers on pressure ulcer/injury prevention and management to inform the development of a clinical guideline

BACKGROUND

Consumer engagement is a requirement of high quality clinical guidelines. Developing strategies to engage consumers and incorporate the perspectives of individuals with or at risk of pressure ulcers/injuries and their informal caregivers was one priority in the recent update of the EPUAP/NPIAP/PPPIA's Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Ulcers/Injuries: Clinical Practice Guideline.

AIMS

The aims were to determine the goals of individuals and caregivers for pressure ulcer/injury care, priorities for pressure ulcer/injury education and biggest problems related to pressure ulcers/injuries.

METHODS

An online, anonymous, international 10-item survey, accessible in nine languages was provided to individuals and their caregivers from April to October 2018. Descriptive statistics were used for quantitative data and a thematic analysis approach was used to analyse qualitative data.

RESULTS

There were 1233 individuals from 27 countries who completed the survey. Overall, individuals and caregivers had similar goals of care. Reducing the size of pressure ulcer/injury was selected more often as a care goal than complete healing. Individuals, compared to caregivers, considered managing pain more important. Qualitative data analysis identified five themes including knowledge, attitudes, and skills; risk factors for pressure ulcer/injury; accessing pressure ulcer/injury care; quality of life for patients and caregivers; and the pressure ulcer/injury.

CONCLUSIONS

The consumer survey provided consumer engagement and perspective that was incorporated into guideline development, including consideration during evaluation of the relevance and acceptability of recommendations, and assignment of recommendation strength ratings.

Quantity and quality of complementary and alternative medicine recommendations in clinical practice guidelines for type 2 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review

AIMS

Approximately 70% of Americans with diabetes have used complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in the past year. Healthcare providers often receive minimal training on these therapies and subsequently rely on clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to supplement their knowledge about the safe and effective use of CAM for the treatment/management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The purpose of this systematic review is to determine the quantity and assess the quality of CAM recommendations in CPGs for the treatment and/or management of T2DM.

DATA SYNTHESIS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL were systematically searched from 2009 to 2020, in addition to the Guidelines International Network and the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health websites. CPGs containing treatment and/or management recommendations for T2DM were eligible; those with CAM recommendations were quality-assessed with the AGREE II instrument twice, once for the overall CPG and once for the CAM sections. Twenty-seven CPGs were deemed eligible, of which 7 made CAM recommendations. Mean scaled domain percentages were (overall, CAM): scope and purpose (89.7%, 79.8%), clarity of presentation (85.7%, 48.4%), stakeholder involvement (67.9%, 28.2%), applicability (54.8%, 20.2%), rigour of development (49.7%, 35.7%), and editorial independence (44.1%, 44.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Quality varied within and across CPGs; domain scores across CAM sections generally scored lower than the overall CPG. Given that CAM therapies for T2DM are only represented in one-quarter of eligible CPGs and are of lower quality, a knowledge gap exists for healthcare providers who seek evidence-based information on this topic in order to effectively counsel inquiring patients.

Clinical practice guidelines for recurrent miscarriage in high-income countries: a systematic review

Recurrent miscarriage affects 1-2% of women of reproductive age, depending on the definition used. A systematic review was conducted to identify, appraise and describe clinical practice guidelines (CPG) published since 2000 for the investigation, management, and/or follow-up of recurrent miscarriage within high-income countries. Six major databases, eight guideline repositories and the websites of 11 professional organizations were searched to identify potentially eligible studies. The quality of eligible CPG was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) Tool. A narrative synthesis was conducted to describe, compare and contrast the CPG and recommendations therein. Thirty-two CPG were included, from which 373 recommendations concerning first-trimester recurrent miscarriage were identified across four sub-categories: structure of care (42 recommendations, nine CPG), investigations (134 recommendations, 23 CPG), treatment (153 recommendations, 24 CPG), and counselling and supportive care (46 recommendations, nine CPG). Most CPG scored 'poor' on applicability (84%) and editorial independence (69%); and to a lesser extent stakeholder involvement (38%) and rigour of development (31%). Varying levels of consensus were found across CPG, with some conflicting recommendations. Greater efforts are required to improve the quality of evidence underpinning CPG, the rigour of their development and the inclusion of multi-disciplinary perspectives, including those with lived experience of recurrent miscarriage.