Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 163

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Patient and Public Involvement in Clinical Practice Guidelines: A Knowledge Synthesis of Existing Programs

Open access
Légaré, France, Boivin, Antoine, van der Weijden, Trudy, Pakenham, Christine, Burgers, Jako, Légaré, Jean, St-Jacques, Sylvie, Gagnon, Susie·2011·Medical Decision Making

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.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0272989x11424401

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 163

Metadata

Authors
Légaré, F., Boivin, A., van der Weijden, T., Pakenham, C., Burgers, J., Légaré, J., St-Jacques, S., & Gagnon, S.
Venue
Medical Decision Making
Published
2011-09-29
Volume
31
Issue
6
Pages
E45-E74
ISSN
  • 0272-989X (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-681X
OpenAlex
W2115767227
Cited by
163
References
4
FWCI
10.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Patient and Public Involvement in Clinical Practice Guidelines: A Knowledge Synthesis of Existing Programs. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0272989x11424401
The paper
Légaré, F., Boivin, A., van der Weijden, T., Pakenham, C., Burgers, J., Légaré, J., St-Jacques, S., & Gagnon, S. (2011). Patient and Public Involvement in Clinical Practice Guidelines: A Knowledge Synthesis of Existing Programs. Medical Decision Making. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x11424401

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.