Cargando…

Evaluating the Acceptability, Feasibility, and Outcomes of Two Methods Involving Patients With Disability in Developing Clinical Guidelines: Crossover Pilot Study

BACKGROUND: Engaging patients and the public in clinical practice guideline (CPG) development is believed to contribute significantly to guideline quality, but the advantages of the various co-design strategies have not been empirically compared, making it difficult to choose one strategy over anoth...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lamontagne, Marie-Eve, Gagnon, Marie-Pierre, Perreault, Kadija, Gauthier, Véronique
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: JMIR Publications 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8663436/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34812733
http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/24319
_version_ 1784613635738304512
author Lamontagne, Marie-Eve
Gagnon, Marie-Pierre
Perreault, Kadija
Gauthier, Véronique
author_facet Lamontagne, Marie-Eve
Gagnon, Marie-Pierre
Perreault, Kadija
Gauthier, Véronique
author_sort Lamontagne, Marie-Eve
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Engaging patients and the public in clinical practice guideline (CPG) development is believed to contribute significantly to guideline quality, but the advantages of the various co-design strategies have not been empirically compared, making it difficult to choose one strategy over another. OBJECTIVE: This pilot study aims to document the acceptability, feasibility, and outcomes of 2 methods of involving patients in outlining CPG. METHODS: A single-blind crossover pragmatic study was performed with patients with traumatic brain injury. The patients experimented with 2 alternative methods of producing clinical practice recommendations (ie, a discussion group and a wiki). The participants rated the acceptability of the 2 methods, and feasibility was assessed using indicators, such as the number of participants who completed the 2 methods and the number of support interventions required. Experts, blinded to the method, independently rated the participants' outcome recommendations for clarity, accuracy, appropriateness, and usefulness. RESULTS: We recruited 20 participants, and 16 completed the study. The acceptability of the 2 methods showed little variation, with qualitative comments expressing a slight preference for the social nature of focus groups. Thus, both methods of involving patients in CPG development appeared feasible, and the experts’ opinions of the adapted recommendations were both positive, although the recommendations produced through focus groups were deemed more relevant to support clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirm the acceptability and feasibility of focus groups and wikis to allow patients with traumatic brain injury to participate in clinical practice guideline production. This study contributes to the scientific literature by suggesting that the 2 methods were acceptable, feasible, and produced positive outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02023138; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02023138
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8663436
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher JMIR Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-86634362022-01-05 Evaluating the Acceptability, Feasibility, and Outcomes of Two Methods Involving Patients With Disability in Developing Clinical Guidelines: Crossover Pilot Study Lamontagne, Marie-Eve Gagnon, Marie-Pierre Perreault, Kadija Gauthier, Véronique J Particip Med Original Paper BACKGROUND: Engaging patients and the public in clinical practice guideline (CPG) development is believed to contribute significantly to guideline quality, but the advantages of the various co-design strategies have not been empirically compared, making it difficult to choose one strategy over another. OBJECTIVE: This pilot study aims to document the acceptability, feasibility, and outcomes of 2 methods of involving patients in outlining CPG. METHODS: A single-blind crossover pragmatic study was performed with patients with traumatic brain injury. The patients experimented with 2 alternative methods of producing clinical practice recommendations (ie, a discussion group and a wiki). The participants rated the acceptability of the 2 methods, and feasibility was assessed using indicators, such as the number of participants who completed the 2 methods and the number of support interventions required. Experts, blinded to the method, independently rated the participants' outcome recommendations for clarity, accuracy, appropriateness, and usefulness. RESULTS: We recruited 20 participants, and 16 completed the study. The acceptability of the 2 methods showed little variation, with qualitative comments expressing a slight preference for the social nature of focus groups. Thus, both methods of involving patients in CPG development appeared feasible, and the experts’ opinions of the adapted recommendations were both positive, although the recommendations produced through focus groups were deemed more relevant to support clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirm the acceptability and feasibility of focus groups and wikis to allow patients with traumatic brain injury to participate in clinical practice guideline production. This study contributes to the scientific literature by suggesting that the 2 methods were acceptable, feasible, and produced positive outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02023138; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02023138 JMIR Publications 2021-11-23 /pmc/articles/PMC8663436/ /pubmed/34812733 http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/24319 Text en ©Marie-Eve Lamontagne, Marie-Pierre Gagnon, Kadija Perreault, Véronique Gauthier. Originally published in Journal of Participatory Medicine (https://jopm.jmir.org), 23.11.2021. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in Journal of Participatory Medicine, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://jopm.jmir.org, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.
spellingShingle Original Paper
Lamontagne, Marie-Eve
Gagnon, Marie-Pierre
Perreault, Kadija
Gauthier, Véronique
Evaluating the Acceptability, Feasibility, and Outcomes of Two Methods Involving Patients With Disability in Developing Clinical Guidelines: Crossover Pilot Study
title Evaluating the Acceptability, Feasibility, and Outcomes of Two Methods Involving Patients With Disability in Developing Clinical Guidelines: Crossover Pilot Study
title_full Evaluating the Acceptability, Feasibility, and Outcomes of Two Methods Involving Patients With Disability in Developing Clinical Guidelines: Crossover Pilot Study
title_fullStr Evaluating the Acceptability, Feasibility, and Outcomes of Two Methods Involving Patients With Disability in Developing Clinical Guidelines: Crossover Pilot Study
title_full_unstemmed Evaluating the Acceptability, Feasibility, and Outcomes of Two Methods Involving Patients With Disability in Developing Clinical Guidelines: Crossover Pilot Study
title_short Evaluating the Acceptability, Feasibility, and Outcomes of Two Methods Involving Patients With Disability in Developing Clinical Guidelines: Crossover Pilot Study
title_sort evaluating the acceptability, feasibility, and outcomes of two methods involving patients with disability in developing clinical guidelines: crossover pilot study
topic Original Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8663436/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34812733
http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/24319
work_keys_str_mv AT lamontagnemarieeve evaluatingtheacceptabilityfeasibilityandoutcomesoftwomethodsinvolvingpatientswithdisabilityindevelopingclinicalguidelinescrossoverpilotstudy
AT gagnonmariepierre evaluatingtheacceptabilityfeasibilityandoutcomesoftwomethodsinvolvingpatientswithdisabilityindevelopingclinicalguidelinescrossoverpilotstudy
AT perreaultkadija evaluatingtheacceptabilityfeasibilityandoutcomesoftwomethodsinvolvingpatientswithdisabilityindevelopingclinicalguidelinescrossoverpilotstudy
AT gauthierveronique evaluatingtheacceptabilityfeasibilityandoutcomesoftwomethodsinvolvingpatientswithdisabilityindevelopingclinicalguidelinescrossoverpilotstudy