CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 130Clinical practice guidelines implementationPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareHealth Policy Implementation Science

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 70 of the 71 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

How to integrate individual patient values and preferences in clinical practice guidelines? A research protocol

Open access
van der Weijden, Trudy, Légaré, France, Boivin, Antoine, Burgers, Jako S, van Veenendaal, Haske, Stiggelbout, Anne M, Faber, Marjan, Elwyn, Glyn·2010·Implementation Science
DOI 10.1186/1748-5908-5-10PMC PMC2824684
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines are largely conceived as tools that will inform health professionals' decisions rather than foster patient involvement in decision making. The time now seems right to adapt clinical practice guidelines in such a way that both the professional's perspective as care provider and the patients' preferences and characteristics are being weighed equally in the decision-making process. We hypothesise that clinical practice guidelines can be adapted to facilitate the integration of individual patients' preferences in clinical decision making. This research protocol asks two questions: How should clinical practice guidelines be adapted to elicit patient preferences and to support shared decision making? What type of clinical decisions are perceived as most requiring consideration of individual patients' preferences rather than promoting a single best choice? METHODS: Stakeholders' opinions and ideas will be explored through an 18-month qualitative study. Data will be collected from in-depth individual interviews. A purposive sample of 20 to 25 key-informants will be selected among three groups of stakeholders: health professionals using guidelines (e.g., physicians, nurses); experts at the macro- and meso-level, including guideline and decision aids developers, policy makers, and researchers; and patient representatives. Ideas and recommendations expressed by stakeholders will be prioritized by nominal group technique in expert meetings. DISCUSSION: One-for-all guidelines do not account for differences in patients' characteristics and for their preferences for medical interventions and health outcomes, suggesting a need for flexible guidelines that facilitate patient involvement in clinical decision making. The question is how this can be achieved. This study is not about patient participation in guideline development, a closely related and important issue that does not however substitute for, or guarantee individual patient involvement in clinical decisions. The study results will provide the needed background for recommendations about potential effective and feasible strategies to ensure greater responsiveness of clinical practice guidelines to individual patient's preferences in clinical decision-making.

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 · 10.1186/1748-5908-5-10

Cites

70 of 70 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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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 71 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Weijden Van der T, van Veenendaal H, Timmermans DRM: Shared decision making in the Netherlands. Zeitschrift fur Arztliche Fortbildung und Qualitatssicherung. 2007, 101: 241-6.
  2. Chong C, Chen I, Naglie C, Krahn M: Do clinical practice guidelines incorporate evidence on patient preferences?. Med Dec Making. 2007, 27: E63-4.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–129 of 129

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
van der Weijden, T., Légaré, F., Boivin, A., Burgers, J. S., van Veenendaal, H., Stiggelbout, A. M., Faber, M., & Elwyn, G.
Affiliations
  • Université Laval (CA)
  • Radboud University Medical Center (NL)
  • Dutch Institute for Healthcare Improvement (NL)
  • Leiden University Medical Center (NL)
  • Cardiff University (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Implementation Science
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2010-02-02
Volume
5
Issue
1
Pages
10-10
ISSN
1748-5908 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/1748-5908-5-10
PMC
PMC2824684
OpenAlex
W2141819865
Cited by
130
References
71
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 6
FWCI
8.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Implementation Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • ZonMw
  • Economic and Social Research Council (ES/G007543/1)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
patient preferences, shared decision-making, guideline adaptation, patient representatives, stakeholder perspectives, decision aids

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