Participant experiences with a new online modified-Delphi approach for engaging patients and caregivers in developing clinical guidelines.

Courtney Armstrong, S. Grant, K. Kinnett, B. Denger, Annalee Martin, I. Coulter, M. Booth, Dmitry Khodyakov
{"title":"Participant experiences with a new online modified-Delphi approach for engaging patients and caregivers in developing clinical guidelines.","authors":"Courtney Armstrong, S. Grant, K. Kinnett, B. Denger, Annalee Martin, I. Coulter, M. Booth, Dmitry Khodyakov","doi":"10.5750/EJPCH.V7I3.1745","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background\nPatient engagement in clinical practice guideline (CPG) development has increased significantly in recent years. However, only a few patients and caregivers join CPG development groups.\n\n\nObjective\nTo describe participant experiences with a novel online, scalable approach for patient and caregiver engagement in CPG development.\n\n\nDesign\nWe developed and tested the RAND/PPMD Patient-Centeredness Method (RPM), a novel online modified-Delphi approach to patient engagement in CPG development that consists of an optional idea generation round and two rating rounds interspersed with an online discussion round.\n\n\nSetting and Participants\nUsing the online ExpertLens™ system, we ran 2 concurrent panels of patients and caregivers of individuals with Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD).\n\n\nMain Outcome Measures\nWe surveyed all 95 panel participants about their participation and satisfaction with the process. We also conducted telephone interviews with 25 participants.\n\n\nResults\nParticipants expressed satisfaction with various ExpertLens™ features, noting that the system fostered lively interaction among them. Panelists also appreciated participating in an educational, interactive and convenient discussion forum that allowed them to share their opinions on the importance and acceptability of different recommendations. The RPM was viewed as empowering by patients and their caregivers who felt it would be useful for CPG developers.\n\n\nDiscussion and Conclusion\nThe results of our study show the overall participant satisfaction with a novel, scalable, online approach to engaging patients and caregivers in CPG development, which allows them to share their perspectives and lived experiences using a rigorous, systematic and iterative way that is similar to how clinicians provide their input.","PeriodicalId":72966,"journal":{"name":"European journal for person centered healthcare","volume":"189 1","pages":"476-489"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"12","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European journal for person centered healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5750/EJPCH.V7I3.1745","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

Abstract

Background Patient engagement in clinical practice guideline (CPG) development has increased significantly in recent years. However, only a few patients and caregivers join CPG development groups. Objective To describe participant experiences with a novel online, scalable approach for patient and caregiver engagement in CPG development. Design We developed and tested the RAND/PPMD Patient-Centeredness Method (RPM), a novel online modified-Delphi approach to patient engagement in CPG development that consists of an optional idea generation round and two rating rounds interspersed with an online discussion round. Setting and Participants Using the online ExpertLens™ system, we ran 2 concurrent panels of patients and caregivers of individuals with Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD). Main Outcome Measures We surveyed all 95 panel participants about their participation and satisfaction with the process. We also conducted telephone interviews with 25 participants. Results Participants expressed satisfaction with various ExpertLens™ features, noting that the system fostered lively interaction among them. Panelists also appreciated participating in an educational, interactive and convenient discussion forum that allowed them to share their opinions on the importance and acceptability of different recommendations. The RPM was viewed as empowering by patients and their caregivers who felt it would be useful for CPG developers. Discussion and Conclusion The results of our study show the overall participant satisfaction with a novel, scalable, online approach to engaging patients and caregivers in CPG development, which allows them to share their perspectives and lived experiences using a rigorous, systematic and iterative way that is similar to how clinicians provide their input.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
参与者的经验与新的在线修改德尔福方法参与制定临床指南的患者和护理人员。
近年来,患者参与临床实践指南(CPG)的制定有了显著的增长。然而,只有少数患者和护理人员加入CPG开发小组。目的用一种新颖的在线、可扩展的方法描述患者和护理人员参与CPG发展的参与者体验。我们开发并测试了RAND/PPMD以患者为中心的方法(RPM),这是一种新颖的在线改进德尔菲方法,用于患者参与CPG开发,包括一个可选的想法生成轮和两个评级轮,中间穿插着一个在线讨论轮。使用在线ExpertLens™系统,我们同时对杜氏肌营养不良症(DMD)患者和护理人员进行了2组调查。主要结果测量我们调查了所有95名小组参与者的参与情况和对过程的满意度。我们还对25名参与者进行了电话采访。结果参与者对ExpertLens™的各种功能表示满意,并指出该系统促进了他们之间的活跃互动。小组成员还赞赏参加了一个教育、互动和方便的讨论论坛,使他们能够就不同建议的重要性和可接受性交换意见。患者和他们的护理人员认为RPM是一种授权,他们认为这对CPG开发人员很有用。讨论与结论我们的研究结果表明,总体参与者对一种新颖的、可扩展的、在线的方法感到满意,这种方法可以让患者和护理人员参与到CPG的开发中,这种方法允许他们使用一种严谨、系统和迭代的方式分享他们的观点和生活经验,类似于临床医生提供他们的意见。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The ethical and epistemic roles of narrative in person-centred healthcare Person-Centred Healthcare versus Patient Centricity - what is the difference and how are pharmaceutical companies aiming to secure internal representation of the patient voice? Moving past phronesis: clinical reasoning in person-centered care Persons over models: shared decision-making for person-centered medicine lifestyle and degeneracy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1