4.6 Article

A framework for practical issues was developed to inform shared decision-making tools and clinical guidelines

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 129, 期 -, 页码 104-113

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.10.002

关键词

Shared decision-making tools; Decision aids; Patient experience; Clinical practice guidelines; Patient-important outcomes

资金

  1. Innlandet Hospital Trust
  2. South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The systematic addition of practical issues to evidence summaries is feasible and can provide information for guidelines and tools for shared decision-making, enriching discussions about care alternatives.
Objectives: The objective of the study was to develop and test feasibility of a framework of patient-important practical issues. Study Design and Setting: Guidelines and shared decision-making tools help facilitate discussions about patient-important outcomes of care alternatives, but typically ignore practical issues patients consider when implementing care into their daily routines. Using grounded theory, practical issues in the HealthTalk.org registry and in Option Grids were identified and categorized into a framework. We integrated the framework into the MAGIC authoring and publication platform and digitally structured authoring and publication platform and appraised its use in The BMJ Rapid Recommendations. Results: The framework included the following 15 categories: medication routine, tests and visits, procedure and device, recovery and adaptation, coordination of care, adverse effects, interactions and antidote, physical well-being, emotional well-being, pregnancy and nursing, costs and access, food and drinks, exercise and activities, social life and relationships, work and education, travel and driving. Implementation in 15 BMJ Rapid Recommendations added 283 issues to 35 recommendations. The most frequently used category was procedure and device, and the least frequent was social life and relationship. Conclusion: Adding practical issues systematically to evidence summaries is feasible and can inform guidelines and tools for shared decision-making. How this inclusion can improve patient-centered care remains to be determined. (C) 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.

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