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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“the literature confirms that there is much debate about which stage of the research process is most appropriate for end-user involvement [34, 35].”
From Development of a decision guide to support the elderly in decision making about location of care: an iterative, user-centered design (2016) · cites this paper as [35]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis
Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732305276687 · Cited by 44,601
GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations
Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A. D., Vist, G. E., Kunz, R., Falck-Ytter, Y., Alonso-Coello, P., & Schünemann, H. J. (2008) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.ad · Cited by 23,305
Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't
Sackett, D. L., Rosenberg, W. M. C., Gray, J. A. M., Haynes, R. B., & Richardson, W. S. (1996) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71 · Cited by 15,769
Why Don't Physicians Follow Clinical Practice Guidelines?: A Framework for Improvement
Cabana, M. D., Rand, C. S., Powe, N. R., Wu, A. W., Wilson, M. H., Abboud, P.-A. C., & Rubin, H. R. (1999) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.282.15.1458 · Cited by 6,677
Boyd, C. M., Darer, J., Boult, C., Fried, L. P., Boult, L., & Wu, A. W. (2005) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.294.6.716 · Cited by 2,581
Charles, C. A., Gafni, A., & Whelan, T. J. (1999) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(99)00145-8 · Cited by 2,439
Elwyn, G. (2006) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.38926.629329.ae · Cited by 1,824
Self-citationGoing from evidence to recommendations
Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A. D., Kunz, R., Falck-Ytter, Y., Vist, G. E., Liberati, A., & Schünemann, H. J. (2008) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.39493.646875.ae · Cited by 1,810
Clinical practice guidelines : directions for a new program
Field, M. J., & Lohr, K. N. (1990) · Cited by 1,415
Légaré, F., Ratté, S., Gravel, K., & Graham, I. D. (2008) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2008.07.018 · Cited by 1,321
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- 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.
- 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
Guiding Principles for the Care of Older Adults with Multimorbidity: An Approach for Clinicians
American Geriatrics Society Expert Panel on the Care of Older Adults with Multimorbidity (2012) · Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2012.04188.x · Cited by 681
Management of Patients With Venous Leg Ulcers: Challenges and Current Best Practice
Franks, P. J., Barker, J., Collier, M. A., Gethin, G., Haesler, E., Jawień, A., Laeuchli, S., Mosti, G. B., Probst, S., & Weller, C. D. (2016) · Journal of Wound Care · doi:10.12968/jowc.2016.25.sup6.s1 · Cited by 313
Shekelle, P., Woolf, S. H., Grimshaw, J., Schünemann, H. J., & Eccles, M. (2012) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-7-62 · Cited by 294
Zhang, Y., Alonso‐Coello, P., Guyatt, G. H., Yepes-Núñez, J. J., Akl, E. A., Hazlewood, G. S., Hernandez, H. P., Etxeandia‐Ikobaltzeta, I., Qaseem, A., Williams, J. W., et al. (2018) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.01.013 · Cited by 281
Perceived barriers to guideline adherence: A survey among general practitioners
Lugtenberg, M., Burgers, J., Besters, C. F., Han, D., & Westert, G. (2011) · BMC Family Practice · doi:10.1186/1471-2296-12-98 · Cited by 253
Self-citation
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)
- Venue
- Implementation Science
- Published
- 2010-02-02
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 10-10
- ISSN
- 1748-5908 (ISSN-L)
- 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
- gold
- doi.org
- 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
