Involvement of consumers in the development of evidence based clinical guidelines: practical experiences from the North of England evidence based guideline development programme

A Van Wersch, Martin Eccles

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

16 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Background—Consumer involvement in
clinical guidelines has long been advocated
although there are few empirical
accounts of attempts to do so. It is
therefore not surprising that there is a
lack of clarity about how and when to
involve consumers and what to expect
from them within the process of guideline
development.
Methods—The North of England evidence
based guideline development programme
has used four diVerent methods of consumer
involvement.
Results—When individual patients were
included in a guideline development group
they contributed infrequently and had
problems with the use of technical language.
Although they contributed most in
discussions of patient education, their
contributions were not subsequently acted
on. In a “one oV” meeting with a group of
patients there were again reported problems
with medical terminology and the
group were most interested in sections on
patient education and self management.
However, their understanding of the use of
scientific evidence in order to contribute to
a more cost eVective health care remained
unclear. In a workshop it was possible to
explain the technical elements of guideline
development to patients who could then
engage with such a process and make
relevant suggestions as a consequence.
However, this was relatively resource intensive.
A patient advocate within a guideline
development group felt confidence to
speak, was used to having discussions with
health professionals, and was familiar with
the medical terminology.
Conclusions—Consumers should be involved
in all stages of guideline development.
While this is possible, it is not
straightforward. There is no one right way
to accomplish this and there is a clear
need for further work on how best to
achieve it.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)10-16
JournalQuality in Health Care
Volume10
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Mar 2001

Fingerprint

England
Guidelines
Terminology
Education
Patient Education
Self Care
Health Care Costs
Language
Community Participation

Bibliographical note

Author can archive publisher's version/PDF. For full details see http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/ [Accessed 12/01/2010]

Cite this

@article{906559417c9640b09c3f2912f865c4ec,
title = "Involvement of consumers in the development of evidence based clinical guidelines: practical experiences from the North of England evidence based guideline development programme",
abstract = "Background—Consumer involvement inclinical guidelines has long been advocatedalthough there are few empiricalaccounts of attempts to do so. It istherefore not surprising that there is alack of clarity about how and when toinvolve consumers and what to expectfrom them within the process of guidelinedevelopment.Methods—The North of England evidencebased guideline development programmehas used four diVerent methods of consumerinvolvement.Results—When individual patients wereincluded in a guideline development groupthey contributed infrequently and hadproblems with the use of technical language.Although they contributed most indiscussions of patient education, theircontributions were not subsequently actedon. In a “one oV” meeting with a group ofpatients there were again reported problemswith medical terminology and thegroup were most interested in sections onpatient education and self management.However, their understanding of the use ofscientific evidence in order to contribute toa more cost eVective health care remainedunclear. In a workshop it was possible toexplain the technical elements of guidelinedevelopment to patients who could thenengage with such a process and makerelevant suggestions as a consequence.However, this was relatively resource intensive.A patient advocate within a guidelinedevelopment group felt confidence tospeak, was used to having discussions withhealth professionals, and was familiar withthe medical terminology.Conclusions—Consumers should be involvedin all stages of guideline development.While this is possible, it is notstraightforward. There is no one right wayto accomplish this and there is a clearneed for further work on how best toachieve it.",
author = "{Van Wersch}, A and Martin Eccles",
note = "Author can archive publisher's version/PDF. For full details see http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/ [Accessed 12/01/2010]",
year = "2001",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1136/qhc.10.1.10",
language = "English",
volume = "10",
pages = "10--16",
journal = "BMJ Quality and Safety",
issn = "2044-5415",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "1",

}

Involvement of consumers in the development of evidence based clinical guidelines: practical experiences from the North of England evidence based guideline development programme. / Van Wersch, A; Eccles, Martin.

In: Quality in Health Care, Vol. 10, No. 1, 01.03.2001, p. 10-16.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Involvement of consumers in the development of evidence based clinical guidelines: practical experiences from the North of England evidence based guideline development programme

AU - Van Wersch, A

AU - Eccles, Martin

N1 - Author can archive publisher's version/PDF. For full details see http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/ [Accessed 12/01/2010]

PY - 2001/3/1

Y1 - 2001/3/1

N2 - Background—Consumer involvement inclinical guidelines has long been advocatedalthough there are few empiricalaccounts of attempts to do so. It istherefore not surprising that there is alack of clarity about how and when toinvolve consumers and what to expectfrom them within the process of guidelinedevelopment.Methods—The North of England evidencebased guideline development programmehas used four diVerent methods of consumerinvolvement.Results—When individual patients wereincluded in a guideline development groupthey contributed infrequently and hadproblems with the use of technical language.Although they contributed most indiscussions of patient education, theircontributions were not subsequently actedon. In a “one oV” meeting with a group ofpatients there were again reported problemswith medical terminology and thegroup were most interested in sections onpatient education and self management.However, their understanding of the use ofscientific evidence in order to contribute toa more cost eVective health care remainedunclear. In a workshop it was possible toexplain the technical elements of guidelinedevelopment to patients who could thenengage with such a process and makerelevant suggestions as a consequence.However, this was relatively resource intensive.A patient advocate within a guidelinedevelopment group felt confidence tospeak, was used to having discussions withhealth professionals, and was familiar withthe medical terminology.Conclusions—Consumers should be involvedin all stages of guideline development.While this is possible, it is notstraightforward. There is no one right wayto accomplish this and there is a clearneed for further work on how best toachieve it.

AB - Background—Consumer involvement inclinical guidelines has long been advocatedalthough there are few empiricalaccounts of attempts to do so. It istherefore not surprising that there is alack of clarity about how and when toinvolve consumers and what to expectfrom them within the process of guidelinedevelopment.Methods—The North of England evidencebased guideline development programmehas used four diVerent methods of consumerinvolvement.Results—When individual patients wereincluded in a guideline development groupthey contributed infrequently and hadproblems with the use of technical language.Although they contributed most indiscussions of patient education, theircontributions were not subsequently actedon. In a “one oV” meeting with a group ofpatients there were again reported problemswith medical terminology and thegroup were most interested in sections onpatient education and self management.However, their understanding of the use ofscientific evidence in order to contribute toa more cost eVective health care remainedunclear. In a workshop it was possible toexplain the technical elements of guidelinedevelopment to patients who could thenengage with such a process and makerelevant suggestions as a consequence.However, this was relatively resource intensive.A patient advocate within a guidelinedevelopment group felt confidence tospeak, was used to having discussions withhealth professionals, and was familiar withthe medical terminology.Conclusions—Consumers should be involvedin all stages of guideline development.While this is possible, it is notstraightforward. There is no one right wayto accomplish this and there is a clearneed for further work on how best toachieve it.

U2 - 10.1136/qhc.10.1.10

DO - 10.1136/qhc.10.1.10

M3 - Article

VL - 10

SP - 10

EP - 16

JO - BMJ Quality and Safety

JF - BMJ Quality and Safety

SN - 2044-5415

IS - 1

ER -