Why consider patients' preferences?: A discourse analysis of clinical practice guideline developers

Medical Care

Volumn 47, Issue 8, 2009, Pages 908-915

  Boivin, Antoine ^a   Green, Judith ^b   Van Der Meulen, Jan ^b   Légaré, France ^c   Nolte, Ellen ^b  

^a RADBOUD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b LONDON SCHOOL OF HYGIENE AND TROPICAL MEDICINE   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITÉ LAVAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

Clinical practice guideline; Consumer choice; Informed choice; Patient participation; Qualitative research; Quality of care

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONSUMER ADVOCACY; DISCOURSE ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH PRACTITIONER; HUMAN; MALE; MEDICAL SPECIALIST; PATIENT DECISION MAKING; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; RISK ASSESSMENT; SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEW; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; INTERVIEW; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PATIENT; PATIENT EDUCATION; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PHYSICIAN;

CLINICAL COMPETENCE; FEMALE; HEALTH PERSONNEL; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS AS TOPIC; MALE; PATIENT EDUCATION AS TOPIC; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PATIENTS; PHYSICIANS; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; QUALITY OF HEALTH CARE;

EID: 67650881702     PISSN: 00257079     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181a81158     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Reden CJ. Rationing care in the community: engaging citizens in health care decision-making. J Health Polit Policy Law. 1999;24:1363-1389.
2. Kassirer JP. Incorporating patients' preferences into medical decisions. N Engl J Med. 1994;330:1895-1896.
3. Florin D, Dixon J. Public involvement in health care. BMJ. 2004;328:159-161.
4. Legare F, Stacey D, Forest PG. Shared decision-making in Canada: update, challenges, and where next! Z Arztl Fortbild Qualitatssich. 2007;101:213-221.
5. Council of Europe. The development of structures for citizen and patient participation in the decision-making process affecting health care. In: Recommendation adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe; February 24, 2000; Strasbourg, France.
6. Krahn M, Naglie G. The next step in guideline development: incorporating patient preferences. JAMA. 2008;300:436-438.
7. WHO. Global Programme on Evidence for Health Policy. Guidelines for WHO guidelines. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2003.
8. Schunemann HJ, Fretheim A, Oxman AD. Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 10. Integrating values and consumer involvement. Health Res Policy Syst. 2006;4:22.
9. The AGREE collaboration. Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument. 2001. Available at: http:\\www.agreetrust.org. Accessed July 10, 2007.
10. Boivin A, Marshall C. What role for patients and the public in guidelines? Launch of a new G-I-N working group. ENGINE. 2008: Available at: http:\\www.g-i-n.net\download\files\G-I-N-newsletter-Feb-2008.pdf.
11. Murphy JF. Paternalism or partnership: clinical practice guidelines and patient preferences. Ir Med J. 2008;101:232.
12. McCormack JP, Loewen P. Adding "value" to clinical practice guidelines. Can Fam Physician. 2007;53:1326-1327.
13. Nilsen ES, Myrhaug HT, Johansen M, et al. Methods of consumer involvement in developing healthcare policy and research, clinical practice guidelines and patient information material. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;3:CD004563.
14. Pagliari C, Topalian J. Consumer involvement in guideline development: an international survey of strategies and experiences. In: 4th Guideline International Network Conference; 2007; Toronto, Canada.
15. Rowe G, Frewer LJ. Evaluating Public-Participation Exercises: a Research Agenda. Sci Technol Human Values. 2004;29:512.
16. Wait S, Nolte E. Public involvement policies in health: exploring their conceptual basis. Health Econ Policy Law. 2006;1:149-162.
17. Webler T. "Right" discourse in citizen participation: an evaluative yardstick. In: Renn O, Webler T, Wiedemann P, eds. Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse. Dordrecht, The Netherland: Kluwer Academic; 1995.
18. Abelson J, Forest PG, Eyles J, et al. Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Soc Sci Med. 2003;57:239-251.
19. Milewa T, Valentine J, Calnan M. Community participation and citizenship in British health care planning: narratives of power and involvement in the changing welfare state. Sociol Health Illn. 1999;21:445-465.
20. Newman J, Vidler E. Discriminating customers, responsible patients, empowered users: consumerism and the modernisation of health care. J Soc Policy. 2006;35:193-209.
21. Charles C, Whelan T, Gafni A. What do we mean by partnership in making decisions about treatment? BMJ. 1999;319:780-782.
22. Boivin A, Légaré F, Gagnon MP. Competing norms: Canadian rural family physicians' perception of clinical practice guidelines and shared decision-making. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2008;13:79-84.
23. Deber RB, Kraetschmer N, Urowitz S, et al. Do people want to be autonomous patients? Preferred roles in treatment decision-making in several patient populations. Health Expect. 2007;10:248-258.
24. Gee JP. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. London: Routledge; 1999.
25. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. The Guidelines Manual. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2007.
26. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. The Care and Management of Osteoarthritis in Adults. London: NICE; 2008.
27. Clarke A, Le Maistre N, van der Meulen J, et al. The Refer Project-Realistic Effective Facilitation of Elective Referral: An Assessment of the Current use of Referral Tools for Referral From Primary to Secondary Care for Elective Surgical Assessment and Design of New Tools (Interim Report on Phase 1). London: Royal College of Surgeons of England; 2006. Available at: http:\\www.rcseng.ac.uk\surgical-research-units\docs\REFER%20Report%202006.pdf. Accessed March 17, 2009.
28. Murphy E, Dingwall R, Greatbatch D, et al. Qualitative Research Methods in Health Technology Assessment Health Technology Assessment 2 (16). Southampton, United Kingdom: National Co-ordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment; 1998.
29. Green J, Thorogood N. Qualitative Methods for Health Research. London: SAGE; 2004.
30. Miles MB, Huberman AM. An Expanded Sourcebook. Qualitative Data Analysis. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage; 1994.
31. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, et al. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ. 1996;312:71-72.
32. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, et al. Cost-Utility Analysis. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford University Press; 2005:144.
33. O'Connor AM, Tugwell P, Wells GA, et al. A decision aid for women considering hormone therapy after menopause: decision support framework and evaluation. Patient Educ Couns. 1998;33:267-279.
34. Balint E. The possibilities of patient-centred medicine. J Royal College of Gen Pract. 1969;17:269-276.
35. Coulter A, Ellins J. Effectiveness of strategies for informing, educating, and involving patients. BMJ. 2007;335:24-27.
36. Grimshaw JM, Thomas RE, MacLennan G, et al. Effectiveness and efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8:1-72.
37. Farquhar DR. Recipes or roadmaps? Instead of rejecting clinical practice guidelines as "cookbook" solutions, could physicians use them as roadmaps for the journey of patient care? CMAJ. 1997;157:403-404.
38. Abelson J, Giacomini M, Lehoux P, et al. Bringing 'the public' into health technology assessment and coverage policy decisions: from principles to practice. Health Policy. 2006;82:37-50.
39. Raats CJ, van Veenendaal H, Versluijs MM, et al. A generic tool for development of decision aids based on clinical practice guidelines. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;73:413-417.
40. Owens DK. Patient preferences and the development of practice guidelines. Spine. 1998;23:1073-1079.
41. Bastian H. Raising the standard: practice guidelines and consumer participation. Int J Qual Health Care. 1996;8:485-490.