↓ Skip to main content

Using patient values and preferences to inform the importance of health outcomes in practice guideline development following the GRADE approach

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
33 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
97 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
170 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Using patient values and preferences to inform the importance of health outcomes in practice guideline development following the GRADE approach
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12955-017-0621-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yuan Zhang, Pablo Alonso Coello, Jan Brożek, Wojtek Wiercioch, Itziar Etxeandia-Ikobaltzeta, Elie A. Akl, Joerg J. Meerpohl, Waleed Alhazzani, Alonso Carrasco-Labra, Rebecca L. Morgan, Reem A. Mustafa, John J. Riva, Ainsley Moore, Juan José Yepes-Nuñez, Carlos Cuello-Garcia, Zulfa AlRayees, Veena Manja, Maicon Falavigna, Ignacio Neumann, Romina Brignardello-Petersen, Nancy Santesso, Bram Rochwerg, Andrea Darzi, Maria Ximena Rojas, Yaser Adi, Claudia Bollig, Reem Waziry, Holger J. Schünemann

Abstract

There are diverse opinions and confusion about defining and including patient values and preferences (i.e. the importance people place on the health outcomes) in the guideline development processes. This article aims to provide an overview of a process for systematically incorporating values and preferences in guideline development. In 2013 and 2014, we followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to adopt, adapt and develop 226 recommendations in 22 guidelines for the Ministry of Health of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. To collect context-specific values and preferences for each recommendation, we performed systematic reviews, asked clinical experts to provide feedback according to their clinical experience, and consulted patient representatives. We found several types of studies addressing the importance of outcomes, including those reporting utilities, non-utility measures of health states based on structured questionnaires or scales, and qualitative studies. Guideline panels used the relative importance of outcomes based on values and preferences to weigh the balance of desirable and undesirable consequences of alternative intervention options. However, we found few studies addressing local values and preferences. Currently there are different but no firmly established processes for integrating patient values and preferences in healthcare decision-making of practice guideline development. With GRADE Evidence-to-Decision (EtD) frameworks, we provide an empirical strategy to find and incorporate values and preferences in guidelines by performing systematic reviews and eliciting information from guideline panel members and patient representatives. However, more research and practical guidance are needed on how to search for relevant studies and grey literature, assess the certainty of this evidence, and best summarize and present the findings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 33 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 170 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 170 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 28 16%
Student > Master 18 11%
Other 17 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 8%
Student > Bachelor 13 8%
Other 39 23%
Unknown 41 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 53 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 14%
Social Sciences 7 4%
Psychology 7 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 4%
Other 22 13%
Unknown 52 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 June 2023.
All research outputs
#1,583,807
of 24,462,749 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#79
of 2,256 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,740
of 315,121 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#6
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,462,749 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,256 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,121 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.