患者参与制定临床指南

The BMJ Pub Date : 2024-11-08 DOI:10.1136/bmj.q2433
Trisha Greenhalgh, Cheryl Misak, Rebecca Payne, Nadia Swann
{"title":"患者参与制定临床指南","authors":"Trisha Greenhalgh, Cheryl Misak, Rebecca Payne, Nadia Swann","doi":"10.1136/bmj.q2433","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Experiential evidence must be open to scrutiny and criticism The literature on development of clinical guidelines generally accepts that patients and carers should be involved in the process.123 Patients contribute subjective and practical knowledge of a condition, including what it feels like, what challenges it poses to living a productive and fulfilling life, and how to manage symptoms and flare-ups. Patient knowledge (“experiential evidence” or “lived experience”) often complements but sometimes conflicts with the professional knowledge of clinicians and academics on guidance development panels. Patient input to guideline panels has contributed to better care experiences and better health outcomes2 but is not without controversy. Most guideline development panels worldwide follow the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. These methods set out how to assess and combine research evidence by weighting it according to study design, risk of bias, and magnitude of effect.4 GRADE methods are widely accepted but have been described as hierarchical, quantitative, and exclusively focused on research evidence.567 Partly in response to such criticism, GRADE guidance has evolved to incorporate research into patients’ values and preferences (usually in the form of patient reported outcome measures).89 However, this approach to capturing the patient experience has been justifiably criticised for “subordinating patient …","PeriodicalId":22388,"journal":{"name":"The BMJ","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patient involvement in developing clinical guidelines\",\"authors\":\"Trisha Greenhalgh, Cheryl Misak, Rebecca Payne, Nadia Swann\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmj.q2433\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Experiential evidence must be open to scrutiny and criticism The literature on development of clinical guidelines generally accepts that patients and carers should be involved in the process.123 Patients contribute subjective and practical knowledge of a condition, including what it feels like, what challenges it poses to living a productive and fulfilling life, and how to manage symptoms and flare-ups. Patient knowledge (“experiential evidence” or “lived experience”) often complements but sometimes conflicts with the professional knowledge of clinicians and academics on guidance development panels. Patient input to guideline panels has contributed to better care experiences and better health outcomes2 but is not without controversy. Most guideline development panels worldwide follow the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. These methods set out how to assess and combine research evidence by weighting it according to study design, risk of bias, and magnitude of effect.4 GRADE methods are widely accepted but have been described as hierarchical, quantitative, and exclusively focused on research evidence.567 Partly in response to such criticism, GRADE guidance has evolved to incorporate research into patients’ values and preferences (usually in the form of patient reported outcome measures).89 However, this approach to capturing the patient experience has been justifiably criticised for “subordinating patient …\",\"PeriodicalId\":22388,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The BMJ\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The BMJ\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.q2433\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The BMJ","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.q2433","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

123 患者提供了有关病情的主观和实际知识,包括病情的感觉、对过上富有成效和充实的生活带来的挑战,以及如何控制症状和复发。患者的知识("经验证据 "或 "生活经历")往往与指南制定小组中临床医生和学者的专业知识相辅相成,但有时也会发生冲突。患者对指南小组的意见有助于改善护理体验和健康结果2 ,但也并非没有争议。全球大多数指南制定小组都遵循建议评估、制定和评价分级法(GRADE)。这些方法规定了如何根据研究设计、偏倚风险和效果大小对研究证据进行加权,从而对其进行评估和组合。4 GRADE 方法已被广泛接受,但也被描述为等级化、定量化且只关注研究证据。567 GRADE 指南的发展部分是为了回应此类批评,将研究纳入患者的价值观和偏好(通常以患者报告结果测量的形式)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Patient involvement in developing clinical guidelines
Experiential evidence must be open to scrutiny and criticism The literature on development of clinical guidelines generally accepts that patients and carers should be involved in the process.123 Patients contribute subjective and practical knowledge of a condition, including what it feels like, what challenges it poses to living a productive and fulfilling life, and how to manage symptoms and flare-ups. Patient knowledge (“experiential evidence” or “lived experience”) often complements but sometimes conflicts with the professional knowledge of clinicians and academics on guidance development panels. Patient input to guideline panels has contributed to better care experiences and better health outcomes2 but is not without controversy. Most guideline development panels worldwide follow the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. These methods set out how to assess and combine research evidence by weighting it according to study design, risk of bias, and magnitude of effect.4 GRADE methods are widely accepted but have been described as hierarchical, quantitative, and exclusively focused on research evidence.567 Partly in response to such criticism, GRADE guidance has evolved to incorporate research into patients’ values and preferences (usually in the form of patient reported outcome measures).89 However, this approach to capturing the patient experience has been justifiably criticised for “subordinating patient …
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Tranexamic acid for postpartum bleeding … and other research We need a gender just transition for health systems and climate action Isolated femoral head destruction One hundred years of electroencephalography . . . and other stories Should GPs be allowed to offer private services to their patients?
×
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