4.6 Article

Recommendations for patient engagement in guideline development panels: A qualitative focus group study of guideline-naive patients

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 12, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0174329

关键词

-

资金

  1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) [K08HS24159]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Patient and consumer engagement in clinical practice guideline development is internationally advocated, but limited research explores mechanisms for successful engagement. Objective To investigate the perspectives of potential patient/consumer guideline representatives on topics pertaining to engagement including guideline development group composition and barriers to and facilitators of engagement. Setting and participants Participants were guideline-naive volunteers for programs designed to link community members to academic research with diverse ages, gender, race, and degrees of experience interacting with health care professionals. Methods Three focus groups and one key informant interview were conducted and analyzed using a qualitative descriptive approach. Results Participants recommended small, diverse guideline development groups engaging multiple patient/consumer stakeholders with no prior relationships with each other or professional panel members. No consensus was achieved on the ideal balance of patient/consumer and professional stakeholders. Pre-meeting reading/training and an identified contact person were described as keys to successful early engagement; skilled facilitators, understandable speech and language, and established mechanisms for soliciting patient opinions were suggested to enhance engagement at meetings. Conclusions Most suggestions for effective patient/consumer engagement in guidelines require forethought and planning but little additional expense, making these strategies easily accessible to guideline developers desiring to achieve more meaningful patient and consumer engagement.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据