IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v31y2011i6pe45-e74.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patient and Public Involvement in Clinical Practice Guidelines

Author

Listed:
  • France Légaré
  • Antoine Boivin
  • Trudy van der Weijden
  • Christine Pakenham
  • Jako Burgers
  • Jean Légaré
  • Sylvie St-Jacques
  • Susie Gagnon

Abstract

Background. The role of patient and public involvement programs (PPIPs) in developing and implementing clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) has generated great interest. Purpose. The authors sought to identify key components of PPIPs used in developing and implementing CPGs. Data sources. The authors searched bibliographic databases and contacted relevant organizations. Study selection. In total, 2161 articles and reports were retrieved on PPIPs in the development and implementation of CPGs. Of these, 71 qualified for inclusion in the review. Data extraction . Reviewers independently extracted data on key components of PPIPs and barriers and facilitators to their operation. Data synthesis. Over half of the studies were published after 2002, and more than half originated from the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Germany. CPGs that involved patients and the public addressed a variety of health problems, especially mental health and cancer. The most frequently cited objective for using PPIPs in developing CPGs was to incorporate patients’ values or perspectives in CPG recommendations. Patients and their families and caregivers were the parties most often involved. Methods used to recruit PPIP participants included soliciting through patient/public organizations, sending invitations, and receiving referrals and recruits from clinicians. Patients and the public most often participated by taking part in a CPG working group, workshop, meeting, seminar, literature review, or consultation such as a focus group, individual interview, or survey. Patients and the public principally helped formulate recommendations and revise drafts. Limitations. The authors did not contact the authors of the studies. Conclusion. This literature review provides an extensive knowledge base for making PPIPs more effective when developing and implementing CPGs. More research is needed to assess the impact of PPIPs and resources they require.

Suggested Citation

  • France Légaré & Antoine Boivin & Trudy van der Weijden & Christine Pakenham & Jako Burgers & Jean Légaré & Sylvie St-Jacques & Susie Gagnon, 2011. "Patient and Public Involvement in Clinical Practice Guidelines," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(6), pages 45-74, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:31:y:2011:i:6:p:e45-e74
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X11424401
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X11424401
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X11424401?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Judith Green, 2004. "Book Review: Qualitative Methods and Health Policy Research," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 9(4), pages 108-109, November.
    2. Moreira, Tiago, 2005. "Diversity in clinical guidelines: the role of repertoires of evaluation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(9), pages 1975-1985, May.
    3. Lehoux, Pascale & Daudelin, Genevieve & Demers-Payette, Olivier & Boivin, Antoine, 2009. "Fostering deliberations about health innovation: What do we want to know from publics?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(11), pages 2002-2009, June.
    4. Martin, Graham P., 2008. "Representativeness, legitimacy and power in public involvement in health-service management," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(11), pages 1757-1765, December.
    5. Abelson, Julia & Eyles, John & McLeod, Christopher B. & Collins, Patricia & McMullan, Colin & Forest, Pierre-Gerlier, 2003. "Does deliberation make a difference? Results from a citizens panel study of health goals priority setting," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 95-106, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kris Hoang & Steven E. Salterio & Jim Sylph, 2018. "Barriers to Transferring Auditing Research to Standard Setters," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(3), pages 427-452, September.
    2. Olivia Magwood & Alison Riddle & Jennifer Petkovic & Lyubov Lytvyn & Joanne Khabsa & Pearl Atwere & Elie A. Akl & Pauline Campbell & Vivian Welch & Maureen Smith & Reem A. Mustafa & Heather Limburg & , 2022. "PROTOCOL: Barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in health guideline development: A qualitative evidence synthesis," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(2), June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Degeling, Chris & Carter, Stacy M. & Rychetnik, Lucie, 2015. "Which public and why deliberate? – A scoping review of public deliberation in public health and health policy research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 114-121.
    2. Lehoux, P. & Daudelin, G. & Abelson, J., 2012. "The unbearable lightness of citizens within public deliberation processes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 74(12), pages 1843-1850.
    3. Lösch, Lea & Willems, Willemine & Bongers, Marloes & Timen, Aura & Zuiderent-Jerak, Teun, 2023. "Kaleidoscopic integration: Advancing the integration of incommensurable knowledge in healthcare guidelines," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 339(C).
    4. Francesca Gennari, 2023. "The transition towards a circular economy. A framework for SMEs," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 27(4), pages 1423-1457, December.
    5. Lehoux, P. & Miller, F.A. & Williams-Jones, B., 2020. "Anticipatory governance and moral imagination: Methodological insights from a scenario-based public deliberation study," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    6. Allen, Davina, 2009. "From boundary concept to boundary object: The practice and politics of care pathway development," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 354-361, August.
    7. Lagerlöf, Helena & Eriksson, Lena & Sager, Morten, 2024. "Organizing implementation in healthcare: Balancing orders of worth," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 340(C).
    8. Degeling, Chris & Rychetnik, Lucie & Street, Jackie & Thomas, Rae & Carter, Stacy M., 2017. "Influencing health policy through public deliberation: Lessons learned from two decades of Citizens'/community juries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 166-171.
    9. Laura J. Damschroder & Peter A. Ubel & Jason Riis & Dylan M. Smith, 2007. "An alternative approach for eliciting willingness-to-pay: A randomized Internet trial," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 2, pages 96-106, April.
    10. Pauline Katharina Mantell & Annika Baumeister & Stephan Ruhrmann & Anna Janhsen & Christiane Woopen, 2021. "Attitudes towards Risk Prediction in a Help Seeking Population of Early Detection Centers for Mental Disorders—A Qualitative Approach," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(3), pages 1-13, January.
    11. Taipale, Jaakko & Hautamäki, Lotta, 2021. "Clinical practice guidelines in courts’ representation of medical evidence and testimony," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 275(C).
    12. Häggström, Felix & Borsch, Anne Sofie & Skovdal, Morten, 2020. "Caring alone: The boundaries of teachers' ethics of care for newly arrived immigrant and refugee learners in Denmark," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    13. Steffensen, Mette B. & Matzen, Christina L. & Wadmann, Sarah, 2022. "Patient participation in priority setting: Co-existing participant roles," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 294(C).
    14. Madi, Banyana Cecilia & Hussein, Julia & Hounton, Sennen & D'Ambruoso, Lucia & Achadi, Endang & Arhinful, Daniel Kojo, 2007. "Setting priorities for safe motherhood programme evaluation: A participatory process in three developing countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(1), pages 94-104, September.
    15. Guldbrandsson, Karin & Bremberg, Sven, 2020. "Cross-sectoral cooperation at the ministerial level in three Nordic countries - With a focus on health inequalities," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 256(C).
    16. de Freitas, Cláudia & Martin, Graham, 2015. "Inclusive public participation in health: Policy, practice and theoretical contributions to promote the involvement of marginalised groups in healthcare," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 31-39.
    17. Mathew Carter & Colleen Fisher & Mohan Isaac, 2013. "Recovery From Comorbidity," SAGE Open, , vol. 3(4), pages 21582440135, November.
    18. Broom, Alex & Adams, Jon & Tovey, Philip, 2009. "Evidence-based healthcare in practice: A study of clinician resistance, professional de-skilling, and inter-specialty differentiation in oncology," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 192-200, January.
    19. Daskalopoulou, Athanasia & Palmer, Mark, 2021. "Persistent institutional breaches: Technology use in healthcare work," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 289(C).
    20. Reckers-Droog, Vivian & Jansen, Maarten & Bijlmakers, Leon & Baltussen, Rob & Brouwer, Werner & van Exel, Job, 2020. "How does participating in a deliberative citizens panel on healthcare priority setting influence the views of participants?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(2), pages 143-151.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:31:y:2011:i:6:p:e45-e74. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.