Engaging Stakeholders to Inform Clinical Practice Guidelines That Address Multiple Chronic Conditions

Journal of General Internal Medicine

Volumn 32, Issue 8, 2017, Pages 883-890

  Bennett, Wendy L ^a,b   Robbins, Craig W ^c   Bayliss, Elizabeth A ^c,d   Wilson, Renee ^b   Tabano, Heather ^c   Mularski, Richard A ^c   Chan, Wiley V ^c   Puhan, Milo ^e   Yu, Tsung ^f   Leff, Bruce ^a   Li, Tianjing ^b   Dickersin, Kay ^b   Glover, Carol ^f   Maslow, Katie ^g,h   Armacost, Karen ^g   Mintz, Suzanne ^g   Boyd, Cynthia M ^a  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^c KAISER PERMANENTE   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^f CHINA MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^g Informing Patient Centered Care for People with Multiple Chronic Conditions   (United States)

^h The Gerontological Society of America   (United States)

Author keywords

multiple chronic conditions; qualitative research; stakeholder engagement

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CAREGIVER; DELPHI STUDY; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MULTIPLE CHRONIC CONDITIONS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PERCEPTION; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; PROTOCOL COMPLIANCE; STANDARDS; UNITED STATES;

CAREGIVERS; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE; DELPHI TECHNIQUE; FOCUS GROUPS; GUIDELINE ADHERENCE; HUMANS; MULTIPLE CHRONIC CONDITIONS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PATIENT OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; UNITED STATES;

EID: 85016097810     PISSN: 08848734     EISSN: 15251497     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11606-017-4039-5     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Anderson G, Horvath J. The growing burden of chronic disease in America. Public Health Rep. 2004;219(3):263–70.
2. Goodman RA, Posner SF, Huang ES, Parekh AK, Koh HK. Defining and measuring chronic conditions: imperatives for research, policy, program, and practice. Prev Chronic Dis. 2013;10:E66.
3. Boyd CM, Darer J, Boult C, Fried LP, Boult L, Wu AW. Clinical practice guidelines and quality of care for older patients with multiple comorbid diseases: implications for pay for performance. JAMA. 2005;294:716–24.
4. Lugtenberg M, Burgers JS, Clancy C, Westert GP, Schneider EC. PMC3197602; current guidelines have limited applicability to patients with comorbid conditions: a systematic analysis of evidence-based guidelines. PLoS One. 2011;6:e25987.
5. Mutasingwa DR, Ge H, Upshur RE. PMC3135464; how applicable are clinical practice guidelines to elderly patients with comorbidities? Can Fam Physician. 2011;57:e253–62.
6. Tinetti ME, Fried TR, Boyd CM. Designing health care for the most common chronic condition--multimorbidity. JAMA. 2012;307(23):2493–4.
7. Tinetti ME, Bogardus ST Jr, Agostini JV. Potential pitfalls of disease-specific guidelines for patients with multiple conditions. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(27):2870–4.
8. PCORI National priorities and research agenda. Available at: http://www.pcori.org/research-we-support/priorities-agenda/. Accessed February 23, 2017.
9. Uhlig K, Leff B, Kent D, et al. A framework for crafting clinical practice guidelines that are relevant to the care and management of people with multimorbidity. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29(4):670–9.
10. Boyd CM, Vollenweider D, Puhan MA. Informing evidence-based decision-making for patients with comorbidity: availability of necessary information in clinical trials for chronic diseases. PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e41601.
11. Qaseem A, Barry MJ, Denberg TD, Owens DK, Shekelle P, Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians. Screening for prostate cancer: a guidance statement from the clinical guidelines committee of the American college of physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(10):761–9.
12. IOM (Institute of Medicine). Clinical practice guidelines we can trust. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2011.
13. Nilsen ES, Myrhaug HT, Johansen M, Oliver S, Oxman AD. Methods of consumer involvement in developing healthcare policy and research, clinical practice guidelines and patient information material. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(3)(3):CD004563.
14. Fleurence R, Selby JV, Odom-Walker K, Hunt G, Meltzer D, Slutsky JR, Yancy C. How the patient-centered outcomes research institute is engaging patients and others in shaping its research agenda. Health Aff (Millwood). 2013;32(2):393–400.
15. Cukor D, Cohen LM, Cope EL, et al. Patient and other stakeholder engagement in patient-centered outcomes research institute funded studies of patients with kidney diseases. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2016;11(9):1703–12.
16. Piette JD, Kerr EA. The impact of comorbid chronic conditions on diabetes care. Diabetes Care. 2006;29(3):725–31.
17. Delbecq A, Van de Ven A, Gustafson D. Group techniques for program planning: a guide to nominal group and Delphi processes. In: Linstone HATM, ed. The Delphi method: techniques and applications. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers Inc.; 1975.
18. Quan H, Sundararajan V, Halfon P, et al. Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data. Med Care. 2005;43(11):1130–9.
19. Crabtree BF, Miller WL. Doing qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications; 1992:276.
20. Ridgeway JL, Egginton JS, Tiedje K, et al. Factors that lessen the burden of treatment in complex patients with chronic conditions: a qualitative study. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2014;8:339–51.
21. Bayliss EA, Balasubramianian BA, Gill JM, Stange KC. Perspectives in primary care: implementing patient-centered care coordination for individuals with multiple chronic medical conditions. Ann Fam Med. 2014;12(6):500–3.
22. Bayliss EA, Bonds DE, Boyd CM, et al. Understanding the context of health for persons with multiple chronic conditions: moving from what is the matter to what matters. Ann Fam Med. 2014;12(3):260–9.
23. Qaseem A, Forland F, Macbeth F, et al. Guidelines international network: toward international standards for clinical practice guidelines. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156(7):525–31.
24. Ryan M, Scott DA, Reeves C, Bate A, van Teijlingen ER, Russell EM, Napper M, Robb CM. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(5):1–186.
25. Deverka PA, Lavallee DC, Desai PJ, et al. Stakeholder participation in comparative effectiveness research: defining a framework for effective engagement. J Comp Eff Res. 2012;1(2):181–94.
26. Concannon TW, Meissner P, Grunbaum JA, et al. A new taxonomy for stakeholder engagement in patient-centered outcomes research. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27(8):985–91.