The involvement of gynaecological patients in the development of a clinical guideline for resumption of (work) activities in the Netherlands

Health Expectations

Volumn 18, Issue 5, 2015, Pages 1397-1412

  Pittens, Carina A C M ^a   Vonk Noordegraaf, Antonie ^b   van Veen, Saskia C ^a   Anema, Johannes R ^b   Huirne, Judith A F ^b   Broerse, Jacqueline E W ^a  

^a ATHENA INSTITUTE   (Netherlands)

^b VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Clinical guideline; Guideline development; Gynaecological patients; Patient involvement; Patients with an incidental and non threatening disease

Indexed keywords

FEMALE; GYNECOLOGIC SURGERY; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERNET; NETHERLANDS; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; RETURN TO WORK;

FEMALE; FOCUS GROUPS; GYNECOLOGIC SURGICAL PROCEDURES; HUMANS; INTERNET; NETHERLANDS; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; RETURN TO WORK;

EID: 84942292621     PISSN: 13696513     EISSN: 13697625     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/hex.12121     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Boivin A, Currie K, Fervers B et al. Patient and public involvement in clinical guidelines: international experiences and future perspectives. Quality & Safety in Health Care, 2010; 19: e22.
2. Kelson M. Patient involvement in clinical guideline development - where are we now? The Journal of Clinical Governance, 2001; 9: 169-174.
3. Owens DK. Patient preferences and the development of practice guidelines. Spine, 1998; 23: 1073-1079.
4. Rankin N, Newell S, Sanson-Fisher R, Girgis A. Consumer participation in the development of psychosocial clinical practice guidelines: opinions of women with breast cancer. European Journal of Cancer Care, 2000; 9: 97-104.
5. van Wersch A, Eccles M. Involvement of consumers in the development of evidence based clinical guidelines: practical experiences from the North of England evidence based guideline development programme. Quality in Health Care, 2001; 10: 10-16.
6. Boivin A, Legare F. Public involvement in guideline development. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 2007; 176: 1308-1309.
7. Rogers WA. Are guidelines ethical? Some considerations for general practice. British Journal of General Practice, 2002; 52: 663-668.
8. Bovenkamp H, Trappenburg M. Reconsidering patient participation in guideline development. Health Care Analysis, 2009; 17: 198-216.
9. Broerse JEW, van der Ham L, van Veen S, Pittens C, van Tulder M. Inventarisatie van patientenparticipatie bij richtlijnontwikkeling. Amsterdam: VU University Amsterdam, 2010.
10. Kwaliteitsinstituut voor de Gezondheidszorg CBO en NPCF. Richtlijnontwikkeling - Praktische handleiding voor patientvertegenwoordigers. Utrecht: Kwaliteitsinstituut voor de Gezondheidszorg CBO en NPCF, 2008.
11. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. The Guidelines Manual, 2009. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Available at: http://www.nice.org.uk/media/5f2/44/the_guidelines_manual_2009_-_all_chapters.pdf, accessed 14 August 2013.
12. Vereniging Integrale Kankercentra. Draaiboek richtlijnen. Ontwikkelen, implementeren en evalueren van richtlijnen. Utrecht: Vereniging Integrale Kankercentra, 2010.
13. Krahn M, Naglie G. The next step in guideline development - incorporating patient preferences. Jama-Journal of the American Medical Association, 2008; 300: 436-438.
14. Vonk Noordegraaf A, Huirne JAF, Brolmann HAM et al. Effectiveness of a multidisciplinary care program on recovery and return to work of patients after gynaecological surgery; design of a randomized controlled trial. BMC Health Services Research, 2012; 12: 29-29.
15. Vonk Noordegraaf AV, Huirne JAF, Pittens CACM, et al. eHealth program to empower patients in returning to normal activities work after gynecological surgery: intervention mapping as a useful method for development. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 2012; 14: e124.
16. Vonk Noordegraaf A, Huirne JAF, Brolmann HAM, van Mechelen W, Anema JR. Multidisciplinary convalescence recommendations after gynaecological surgery: a modified Delphi method among experts. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 2011; 118: 1557-1567.
17. Kupper F, Krijgsman L, Bout H, de Cock Buning T. The value lab: exploring moral frameworks in the deliberation of values in the animal biotechnology debate. Science and Public Policy, 2007; 34: 657-670.
18. Roelofsen A, Broerse J, Buning TdC, Bunders J. Engaging with future technologies: how potential future users frame ecogenomics. Science and Public Policy, 2010; 37: 167-179.
19. Scientific Software Development ATLAS.ti Version 6.2, Berlin: Scientific Software Development, 2010.
20. Powell JA, Darvell M, Gray JAM. The doctor, the patient and the world-wide web: how the internet is changing healthcare. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 2003; 96: 74-76.
21. Cross M. How the internet is changing health care. British Medical Journal, 2008; 337: a883.
22. Randeree E. Exploring technology impacts of Healthcare 2.0 initiatives. Telemedicine Journal and E-Health, 2009; 15: 255-260.
23. Griffiths F, Lindenmeyer A, Powell J, Lowe P, Thorogood M. Why are health care interventions delivered over the internet? A systematic review of the published literature. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 2006; 8: e10.
24. Forkner-Dunn J. Internet-based patient self-care: the next generation of health care delivery. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 2003; 5: e8.
25. Abelson J, Forest PG, Eyles J, Smith P, Martin E, Gauvin FP. Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Social Science & Medicine, 2003; 57: 239-251.
26. Abelson J, Gauvin FP, Assessing the Impacts of Public Participation: Concepts, Evidence and Policy Implications. Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research Networks Inc, 2006.
27. Broerse JEW, de Cock Buning T, Roelofsen A, Bunders JFG. Evaluating interactive policy making on biotechnology: the case of the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 2009; 29: 447-463.
28. Caron-Flinterman JF, Broerse JEW, Teerling J et al. Stakeholder participation in health research agenda setting: the case of asthma and COPD research in the Netherlands. Science and Public Policy, 2006; 33: 291-304.
29. Driessen PPJ, Glasbergen P, Verdaas C. Interactive policy-making - a model of management for public works. European Journal of Operational Research, 2001; 128: 322-337.
30. Guston DH. Critical appraisal in science and technology policy analysis: the example of Science, the endless frontier. Policy Sciences, 1997; 30: 233-255.
31. Guston DH. Evaluating the first US consensus conference: the impact of the citizens' panel on telecommunications and the future of democracy. Science Technology & Human Values, 1999; 24: 451-482.
32. Laird FN. Participatory analysis, democracy, and technological decision-making. Science Technology & Human Values, 1993; 18: 341-361.
33. Rowe G, Frewer LJ. Evaluating public-participation exercises: a research agenda. Science Technology & Human Values, 2004; 29: 512-557.
34. Webler T. 'Right' discourse in citizen participation: an evaluation yardstick. In: Renn O, Webler T, Wiedemann P (eds) Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1995: 35-86.
35. Webler T, Tuler S. Fairness and competence in citizen participation - theoretical reflections from a case study. Administration & Society, 2000; 32: 566-595.
36. Rowe G, Frewer LJ. Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation. Science, Technology & Human Values, 2000; 25: 3-29.
37. Weldon S. Public Engagement in Genetics: A Review of Current Practice in the UK. Lancaster: Lancaster University, 2004.
38. Arnstein SR. Ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 1969; 35: 216-224.
39. Hagendijk R, Irwin A. Public deliberation and governance: engaging with science and technology in contemporary Europe. Minerva, 2006; 44: 167-184.
40. Hagendijk R, Healey P, Horst M, Irwin A. Science, technology and governance in Europe: challenges of public engagement STAGE (HPSE-CT2001-50003) final report, 2005. Available at: http://www.stage-research.net/STAGE/index.html, accessed 14 August 2013.
41. Irvin RA, Stansbury J. Citizen participation in decision making: is it worth the effort? Public Administration Review, 2004; 64: 55-65.
42. Boivin A, Green J, van der Meulen J, Legare F, Nolte E. Why consider patients' preferences? A discourse analysis of clinical practice guideline developers. Medical Care, 2009; 47: 908-915.
43. Beaulieu MD, Hudon E, Roberge D, Pineault R, Forte D, Legare J. Practice guidelines for clinical prevention: do patients, physicians and experts share common ground? Canadian Medical Association Journal, 1999; 161: 519-523.
44. Rashidian A, Eccles MP, Russell I. Falling on stony ground? A qualitative study of implementation of clinical guidelines' prescribing recommendations in primary care. Health Policy, 2008; 85: 148-161.
45. Oxman AD, Lavis JN, Fretheim A. Use of evidence in WHO recommendations - reply. Lancet, 2007; 370: 826-827.
46. van der Weijden T, Legare F, Boivin A et al. How to integrate individual patient values and preferences in clinical practice guidelines? A research protocol. Implementation Science, 2010; 5: doi:10.1186/1748-5908-5-10.
47. Abma TA, Broerse JEW. Patient participation as dialogue: setting research agendas. Health Expectations, 2010; 13: 160-173.