What do patients and the public know about clinical practice guidelines and what do they want from them? A qualitative study

Naomi Fearns, Joanna Kelly, Margaret Callaghan, Karen Graham, Kirsty Loudon, Robin Harbour, Nancy Santesso, Emma McFarlane, Judith Thornton, Shaun Treweek, Naomi Fearns, Joanna Kelly, Margaret Callaghan, Karen Graham, Kirsty Loudon, Robin Harbour, Nancy Santesso, Emma McFarlane, Judith Thornton, Shaun Treweek

Abstract

Background: Guideline producers are increasingly producing versions of guidelines for the public. The aim of this study was to explore what patients and the public understand about the purpose and production of clinical guidelines, and what they want from clinical guidelines to support their healthcare decisions.

Methods: Participants were purposively selected to represent a range of the likely users of patient versions of guidelines, including individuals with health conditions (diabetes and depression), general members of the public, health communication professionals and a group of young people. Participants were asked about their awareness and understanding of clinical guidelines and presented with scenario recommendations, or draft materials from patient guidelines to prompt discussion. Each discussion was facilitated by one or two researchers. All focus groups were recorded and transcribed prior to analysis. Data were analysed using framework analysis.

Results: We ran nine focus groups involving 62 individuals, supplemented by four interviews with people experiencing homelessness. Eight groups were held in Scotland, one in England. The four interviews were held in Scotland. The framework analysis yielded five themes: access and awareness; what patients want to know; properties of guidelines; presenting evidence; and format. Awareness of guidelines was low. Participants emphasised the need for information that enables them to choose between treatment options, including harms. They would like help with this from healthcare professionals, especially general practitioners. Participants differed in their support for the inclusion of numerical information and graphs.

Conclusions: Members of the public want information to help them choose between treatments, including information on harms, particularly to support shared decisions with health professionals. Presenting numerical information is a challenge and layered approaches that present information in stages may be helpful. Ignoring the themes identified in this study is likely to lead to materials that fail to support public and patient healthcare decision making.

Keywords: Clinical practice guideline; Guidelines; Patient guidelines; Patient version.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Thematic framework

References

    1. Harbour R, Lowe G, Twaddle S. Scottish intercollegiate guidelines network: the first 15 years (1993-2008) J R Coll Physicians Edinb. 2011;41(2):163–8. doi: 10.4997/JRCPE.2011.209.
    1. Graham R, Mancher M, Wolman D, Greenfield S, Sternberg E (Editors). Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Standards for Developing Trustworthy Clinical Practice Guidelines. Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2011.
    1. Schunemann HJ, Cook D, Guyatt G. Methodology for antithrombotic and thrombolytic therapy guideline development: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition) Chest. 2008;133(6 Suppl):113s–22s. doi: 10.1378/chest.08-0666.
    1. Loudon K, Santesso N, Callaghan M, Thornton J, Harbour J, Graham K, et al. Patient and public attitudes to and awareness of clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review with thematic and narrative syntheses. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14(1):321. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-14-321.
    1. Carman K, Maurer M, Yeglan J, Dardress P, McGee J, Evers M, et al. Evidence that consumers are skeptical about evidence-based health care. Health Aff. 2010;29(7):1–7. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2009.0296.
    1. Rosenbaum S, Glenton C, Nylund H, Oxman A. User testing and stakeholder feedback contributed to the development of understandable and useful Summary of Findings tables for Cochrane reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:607–19. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.12.013.
    1. Kristiansen A, Brandt L, Alonso-Coello P, Agoritsas T, Akl EA, Conboy T, et al. Development of a novel, multilayered presentation format for clinical practice guidelines. Chest. 2015;147(3):754–63. doi: 10.1378/chest.14-1366.
    1. Developing and Evaluating Communication Strategies to support Informed Decision and practice based on Evidence (DECIDE). . Accessed 2015 Oct 14.
    1. SHARE. . Accessed 2015 Oct 14.
    1. Sense About Science. . Accessed 2015 Oct 14.
    1. Ritchie J, Spencer L. Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In: Bryman ABR, editor. Analyzing qualitative data. London: Taylor & Francis; 1994. pp. 173–94.
    1. Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N. Analysing qualitative data. BMJ. 2000;320(7227):114–6. doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7227.114.
    1. NHS24. . Accessed 2015 Oct 14.
    1. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Vist GE, Liberati A, et al. Going from evidence to recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336(7652):1049–51. doi: 10.1136/.
    1. Lynch PJ, Horton S. Web Style Guide 3rd edition. . Accessed 2015 Oct 15.
    1. Cuervo LG, Clarke M. Balancing benefits and harms in health care. BMJ. 2003;327(7406):65–6. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7406.65.
    1. Goldacre B. Bad Pharma: How drug companies mislead doctors and harm patients. London: Fourth Estate; 2012.
    1. Agoritsas T, Heen AF, Brandt L, Alonso-Coello P, Kristiansen A, Akl EA, et al. Decision aids that really promote shared decision making: the pace quickens. BMJ. 2015;350:g7624. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g7624.
    1. Vandvik PO, Brandt L, Alonso-Coello P, Treweek S, Akl EA, Kristiansen A, et al. Creating clinical practice guidelines we can trust, use, and share: a new era is imminent. Chest. 2013;144(2):381–9. doi: 10.1378/chest.13-0746.
    1. Entwistle VA, Cribb A, Watt IS. Shared decision-making: enhancing the clinical relevance. J R Soc Med. 2012;105(10):416–21. doi: 10.1258/jrsm.2012.120039.
    1. Scottish Dental Clinical Effectiveness Programme. Prevention and Treatment of Periodontal Diseases in Primary Care. . Accessed 14 Oct 2015.
    1. Fearns N, Graham K, Johnston G, Service D. Improving the user experience of patient versions of clinical guidelines: user testing of a Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network (SIGN) patient version. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16:37. doi: 10.1186/s12913-016-1287-8.
    1. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):383–94. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026.
    1. Guidelines International Network. About the G-I-N PUBLIC Toolkit: Patient and Public Involvement in Guidelines. .

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe