Article
Patient opinions in the outcome selection for the development of a clinical practice guideline
Search Medline for
Authors
-
N. Ibargoyen-Roteta
- Basque Office for Health Technology Assessment - OSTEBA, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain
-
I. Etxeandia-Ikobaltzeta
- Basque Office for Health Technology Assessment - OSTEBA, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain
-
A. Aldasoro
- University Hospital Donostia - Basque Health Service -Osakidetza, Donostia, Spain
-
E. Galardi-Andonegui
- Primary Care Center Bidebieta - Basque Health Service -Osakidetza, Bidebieta, Spain
-
M. Callén-Blecua
- Primary Care Center Bidebieta - Basque Health Service -Osakidetza, Bidebieta, Spain
-
M. Villar-Álvarez
- University Hospital Basurto - Basque Health Service -Osakidetza, Bilbao, Spain
-
J.J. Elorz-Lambarri
- University Hospital Basurto - Basque Health Service -Osakidetza, Bilbao, Spain
| Published: | July 10, 2012 |
|---|
Outline
Text
Background: The development of a clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) using the GRADE system requires to rate patient-important-outcomes. The involvement of patients in this phase could be an appropriate strategy to include the patient's perspective into the development of CPGs.
Objective: To study if there are differences between clinicians and patients scores when rating the importance of the outcomes of interest; and to identify other different outcomes proposed by the patients.
Methods: A group of 11 professionals was selected to update CPG recommendations on childhood asthma. They defined and rated the importance of outcomes that should be used to assess the evidence. A questionnaire was developed to know the importance given by patients’ parents to the defined outcomes and to record suggestions regarding other outcomes proposed by them. The importance of the outcomes was rated and classified as proposed by the GRADE system. Differences in scores were compared by U-Mann Whitney test. SPSS 19.0 program was used.
Results: Preliminary results are presented. 17 patients answered to the questionnaire. From the 13 outcomes defined by the working group, 7 obtained a significant different score (Bronchial-hyperactivity, rescue-medication, behavioral-problems, diurnal-and-nocturnal symptoms, improvement in lung function and quality-of--life), although only the first three showed differences in classification level from critical to important outcome.
Conclusion and Implications: There were little differences in the outcomes rating between clinicians and patients. Nevertheless, patients participation in this phase may influence the selection of the outcomes included in the evidence synthesis and consequently in the formulation of recommendations.
