Title |
How to integrate individual patient values and preferences in clinical practice guidelines? A research protocol
|
---|---|
Published in |
Implementation Science, February 2010
|
DOI | 10.1186/1748-5908-5-10 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Trudy van der Weijden, France Légaré, Antoine Boivin, Jako S Burgers, Haske van Veenendaal, Anne M Stiggelbout, Marjan Faber, Glyn Elwyn |
Abstract |
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? |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Canada | 1 | 50% |
United States | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Spain | 3 | 1% |
United States | 3 | 1% |
Canada | 3 | 1% |
United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
South Africa | 1 | <1% |
Poland | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 256 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 53 | 20% |
Student > Master | 43 | 16% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 37 | 14% |
Student > Bachelor | 23 | 9% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 19 | 7% |
Other | 64 | 24% |
Unknown | 31 | 11% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 86 | 32% |
Social Sciences | 36 | 13% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 29 | 11% |
Psychology | 28 | 10% |
Computer Science | 8 | 3% |
Other | 35 | 13% |
Unknown | 48 | 18% |