[Advancing standards for the development of evidence-based health information for consumers: Needs and priorities among members of the Network for Evidence-based Medicine]

BACKGROUND

The Good Practice Guidelines for health information, Good Health Information Austria and Guideline Evidence-based Health Information are established resources for developing evidence-based health information in the German-speaking regions. The aim of this project was to capture challenges in applying these standards in practice, identify gaps and development needs and gain insights for their further development.

METHODS

In December 2020, members of the working group for patient information and involvement of the Network for Evidence-based Medicine were invited to share their experiences and needs in applying German standards for evidence-based health information through an online survey focussing on open questions (part 1: needs assessment). The feedback was analysed using qualitative content analysis and presented in a workshop at the EbM Congress 2021 with the goal of specifying the feedback from the needs assessment and discussing ideas for the further development of the standards (part 2: specification). In the final step, a second survey was conducted in February 2023 to prioritize the identified topics by the working group members (part 3: prioritization). The results were analysed descriptively.

RESULTS

Among the 41 participants, only 23% considered the standards to be sufficient, and only 55% found their application in the development of information to be easy or rather easy. The needs assessment and workshop (n=46) helped to identify various areas of action. With regard to the application of the standards, the following challenges were identified: lack of user orientation, content gaps, methods and risk communication. Gaps in the standards were identified regarding formats, content, and the connection to healthcare provision. For the advancement of the standards ideas for additional content, stakeholder involvement, and improvement of the usability of the standards were identified. In the prioritization survey, the topic areas, "presenting benefits and harms" and "content beyond treatments (in particular, diagnostics and prognosis)" were considered to be the most important (n=36).

DISCUSSION

Among members of the working group for patient information and involvement of the German Network for Evidence-based Medicine, a high demand has been identified for the further development of standards for creating evidence-based health information. In addition to content development, the integration of existing documents and tools should also be considered, including products issued by other institutions. The success of advancing the standards also depends on improving their applicability - for example through an attractive online platform. The results are limited by the sample which only included members of the EbM Network's patient information and participation working group and a limited response rate.

CONCLUSIONS

The needs assessment showed that the currently established standards and recommendations for the development of evidence-based health information in the German-speaking regions represent important cornerstones but need to be expanded to answer more practice-oriented questions. The challenges and proposed solutions stated by the participants can help further develop the standards. The prioritization can be used to set priorities for the development of the standards, guide the order of possible work packages and allocate resources.

Implementation of patient-centred care in Denmark: The way forward with shared decision-making

LEGAL AND POLITICAL LANDSCAPE IN SHARED DECISION MAKING

Current Danish legislation empowers patients in securing their rights, but there are no present legislative developments in Denmark to support patient involvement. Policy initiatives within health care, however, show positive trends by, for example, including recommendations for shared decision making (SDM) in national clinical guidelines and the allocation of resources to fund projects in SDM. Within the last five years, three out of five regions have launched centers in patient involvement and SDM to focus on training, implementation of patient decision aids (PtDAs) and to foster the cultural change in SDM. A national dissemination of a template for easy building of PtDAs accessible via an online platform is one of the latest initiatives.

THE WAY FORWARD

Although the political discourse on SDM is gathering speed, an unclear definition and purpose of SDM is a barrier to real-life implementation. Politicians, leaders and clinicians seem to be moving at different paces and in different directions and are lacking consensus on SDM as a paradigm requiring training, leadership and a patient-centered mindset.

CONCLUSION

Many relevant initiatives are underway. However, SDM is also challenged by the lack of legislation and a central push for real SDM implementation in Denmark.

Advancing towards the implementation of patient-centred care in Chile: An opportunity to effectively practice shared decision-making

In Chile, local normative and guidelines place patient-centred care (PCC) as a desirable means and outcome for each level of health care. Thus, a definition of PCC is provided, and for the first time shared decision-making (SDM) is included as an intended practice. During the past five years the country has shown progress on the implementation of PCC. A large pilot study was conducted in one of the Metropolitan Health Services, and now the health authority is committed to escalate a PCC strategy nationwide. From the practice domain, most of the work is being placed on the training of health professionals. Patients' preparation for the clinical encounter is scarce, thereby limiting their potential to participate in their care. At the research domain, the country shows a strengthened agenda that has advanced from a diagnostic phase (including the exploration from social sciences) to a purposeful stage which involves the development of training programs, patient decision aids, international collaborations, and other PCC interventions. The country is now positioned to secure new initiatives to empower patients and allow them to take an active role, as a key component of PCC and SDM.

Implementation of shared decision-making and patient-centered care in France: Towards a wider uptake in 2022

We present the evolution of patient-centered care (PCC) and shared decision-making (SDM) in France since 2017, highlighting advantages and drawbacks of their implementation at the macro level. We then focus on several key policy and legislative milestones that are aimed to develop PCC and SDM. These milestones underline the importance of patient movements to support and fund the development of research and practice in the field. We shall conclude by presenting the growing research agenda and selected key topics. These key topics notably include the increase in both patient and healthcare professional trainings on PCC and SDM provided by healthcare users' and patients' representatives. PCC and SDM continue to be central preoccupations at the macro level, supported by public health policies and patients/healthcare users' actions. This overview, however, suggests that although implementation initiatives have increased since 2017, implementation remains scarce in routine clinical practice. Funding, not only for research projects, but for the implementation of PCC and SDM in real-life settings (e-decision aids, clinical guidelines integrating PCC/SDM, human resources dedicated to PCC/SDM, etc.) are needed to promote sustained adoption. More systematic training for both healthcare professionals and patients is also warranted for a true acculturation to occur.

Shared decision-making in Canada: Update on integration of evidence in health decisions and patient-centred care government mandates

In Canada, government mandates for patient-centred care (PCC) vary across the 10 provinces and three territories. Although basic medical and hospital services are provided for all, health care options for patients also depend on having private insurance. Thus, the current design of the Canadian healthcare system has several implications for PCC and shared decision-making (SDM). Since 2007, this is our fourth update on SDM in Canada. The aim of this paper is to provide an update on the current state of SDM and patient and public involvement in Canada. Overall, we still observed the difficulty of implementing any sort of national strategy partly because of the decentralized nature of the healthcare system. Second, national professional education programs are complicated by licensure and scope of practice variations across jurisdictions. Third, there are variations in the availability of different options covered by universal healthcare. Canada has experienced some favorable development as PCC is now explicitly articulated in the policies of most provinces and territories and there are increased efforts to give patients more access to their electronic health records. However, patient and public engagement (PPE) reform in health programs and governance remains an exception, and continuing centralization of governance structures may reduce their responsiveness to patient priorities. In a 2018 survey, 47.2% of respondents reported that they were not told by their health professional that they had a choice about treatment. Nonetheless, decision aids and decision coaching are increasingly available for health-related decisions and the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute's decision aid inventory has ensured continued leadership in this area. Diverse jurisdictions are starting to embed decision aids into care pathways, with some decision aids being included in clinical practice guidelines. The COVID-19 pandemic may have had a negative impact on SDM by removing decision choices due to emergency public health mandates, but stimulated new research and decision aids. Canada continues to assign health research funding to SDM and PCC, and a program dedicated to patient-oriented research is central to this effort. Guides and frameworks are increasingly available for planning and evaluating PPE. Finally, various initiatives are attempting to involve and empower Indigenous peoples through PPE and SDM.

[Good practice guidelines for health information]

Evidence-based health information is distinguished by the provision of an unbiased and trustworthy description of the current state of medical knowledge. It enables people to learn more about health and disease, and to make health-related decisions - on their own or together with others - reflecting their attitudes and lifestyle. To adequately serve this purpose, health information must be evidence-based. A working group from the German Network for Evidence-based Medicine (Deutsches Netzwerk Evidenzbasierte Medizin) has developed a first draft of good practice guidelines for health information (Gute Praxis Gesundheitsinformation) with the aim of providing support for authors and publishers of evidence-based health information. The group included researchers, patient representatives, journalists and developers of health information. The criteria for evidence-based health information were developed and agreed upon within this author group, and then made available for public comment. All submitted comments were documented and assessed regarding the need to revise or amend the draft. Changes were subsequently implemented following approval by the author group. Gute Praxis Gesundheitsinformation calls for a transparent methodological approach in the development of health information. To achieve this, evidence-based information must be based on (a) a systematic literature search, (b) a justified selection of evidence, (c) unbiased reporting of relevant results, (d) appropriate factual and linguistic communication of uncertainties, (e) either avoidance of any direct recommendations or a strict division between the reporting of results and the derivation of recommendations, (f) the consideration of current evidence on the communication of figures, risks and probabilities, and (g) transparent information about the authors and publishers of the health information, including their funding sources. Gute Praxis Gesundheitsinformation lists a total of 16 aspects to be addressed in methods papers. Gute Praxis Gesundheitsinformation is a tool that puts forward methodological aspects to be considered when developing health information. In order to be transparent, descriptions of the underlying methods and processes need to be published in easily accessible methods papers describing the general procedure.