gms | German Medical Science

G-I-N Conference 2012

Guidelines International Network

22.08 - 25.08.2012, Berlin

Public consultation for guideline development: who does, when and how?

Meeting Abstract

  • J. André-Vert - Haute Autorite de Sante - Guidelines Department, La Plaine Saint-Denis, France
  • A.L. Couillerot-Peyrondet - Haute Autorite de Sante - Economic Evaluation and Public Health Department, La Plaine Saint-Denis, France
  • O. Scemama - Haute Autorite de Sante - Economic Evaluation and Public Health Department, La Plaine Saint-Denis, France
  • C. Rumeau-Pichon - Haute Autorite de Sante - Economic Evaluation and Public Health Department, La Plaine Saint-Denis, France
  • M. Laurence - Haute Autorite de Sante - Guidelines Department, La Plaine Saint-Denis, France

Guidelines International Network. G-I-N Conference 2012. Berlin, 22.-25.08.2012. Düsseldorf: German Medical Science GMS Publishing House; 2012. DocO51

DOI: 10.3205/12gin083, URN: urn:nbn:de:0183-12gin0832

Published: July 10, 2012

© 2012 André-Vert et al.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/deed.en). You are free: to Share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work, provided the original author and source are credited.


Outline

Text

Background: To involve more patients/users and professionals during guideline development, our organization decided to clarify how public consultations (PC) are organized in health area, based on local PC organizers feedback, international benchmark and literature review.

Objectives: To develop a methodology guide on how to conduct PC during development of public health or clinical practice guidelines (CPG) and economic evaluations.

Methods: 3 surveys were conducted between 2009 and 2011 and completed by a literature review. Local consultation organizers were directly interviewed; G-I-N and EUnetHTA organizations were sent an online questionnaire in order to describe if and how they conduct PC for guideline development. All identified participants to the previous PC launched by our organization (n=701) were sent another questionnaire to approach how they perceived PC.

Results: 7 local and 44 international PC (20 countries) were described. 47% organizations never used PC, whereas 13 systematically organize one for CPG. 14/17 CP for CPG were launched during peer review phase, 9 were a public meeting. Targeted population is preselected or not, individuals or only stakeholders, anonymous or identified. 92/101 PC participants (74% health professionals) gave a positive perception of PC and legitimated the process.

Discussion: Great variations exist either on PC definition, format and impact, depending on topics, targeted population, pre-communication and place in the guideline development process (scope or peer review phase).

Implication for guideline developers/users: PC objectives and targeted population should be clearly displayed to be transparent on the way CP results will impact the final guideline or economic evaluation.