Participatory development of patient-targeted guideline material in palliative care: A qualitative evaluation.

IF 2.7 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Palliative Care and Social Practice Pub Date : 2026-07-23 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.1177/26323524261465682
Hannah Demleitner, Saskia Kauzner, Ronny Schneider, Manuela Schneider, Christoph Ostgathe, Carsten Klein, Maria Heckel
{"title":"Participatory development of patient-targeted guideline material in palliative care: A qualitative evaluation.","authors":"Hannah Demleitner, Saskia Kauzner, Ronny Schneider, Manuela Schneider, Christoph Ostgathe, Carsten Klein, Maria Heckel","doi":"10.1177/26323524261465682","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patient and public involvement (PPI) improves patient-targeted guideline material and is recognised internationally as essential in guideline development. Whilst current research has focussed on PPI both in guideline development and palliative care, evidence regarding its implementation in developing patient-targeted guideline material is limited.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To explore participants' experiences and identify supportive and challenging factors in the participatory development of patient-targeted guideline material in palliative care.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Qualitative evaluation of the participatory development process (04/2024 - 09/2024) of a patient guide to a German best practise recommendation on intentional sedation using questionnaires with open-ended questions followed by semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed using structuring qualitative content analysis according to Kuckartz.</p><p><strong>Setting/participants: </strong>Four PPI members and four healthcare professionals randomly selected from the editorial panel tasked with developing the patient guide.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The participatory approach with experienced PPI-members as experts for lay-comprehensibility fostered an equal and respectful environment, allowing all participants to contribute. Despite successful organisation and communication, obstacles arose regarding time management and technical challenges with hybrid sessions and digital co-working formats. The participants did not require additional methodological training. Working in subgroups proved effective and offered emotional support but carried the risk of creating inequalities.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>PPI can be supported by recruiting experienced PPI advisory board members, providing flexibility through hybrid sessions and managing emotional distress through creating a save atmosphere with peer support in subgroup sessions. Communication barriers in hybrid meetings, rejection of digital co-working formats, inattention to PPI in subgroup sessions and time management issues must be considered when planning a project.</p>","PeriodicalId":36693,"journal":{"name":"Palliative Care and Social Practice","volume":"20 ","pages":"26323524261465682"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13396578/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Palliative Care and Social Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/26323524261465682","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Patient and public involvement (PPI) improves patient-targeted guideline material and is recognised internationally as essential in guideline development. Whilst current research has focussed on PPI both in guideline development and palliative care, evidence regarding its implementation in developing patient-targeted guideline material is limited.

Aim: To explore participants' experiences and identify supportive and challenging factors in the participatory development of patient-targeted guideline material in palliative care.

Design: Qualitative evaluation of the participatory development process (04/2024 - 09/2024) of a patient guide to a German best practise recommendation on intentional sedation using questionnaires with open-ended questions followed by semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed using structuring qualitative content analysis according to Kuckartz.

Setting/participants: Four PPI members and four healthcare professionals randomly selected from the editorial panel tasked with developing the patient guide.

Results: The participatory approach with experienced PPI-members as experts for lay-comprehensibility fostered an equal and respectful environment, allowing all participants to contribute. Despite successful organisation and communication, obstacles arose regarding time management and technical challenges with hybrid sessions and digital co-working formats. The participants did not require additional methodological training. Working in subgroups proved effective and offered emotional support but carried the risk of creating inequalities.

Conclusion: PPI can be supported by recruiting experienced PPI advisory board members, providing flexibility through hybrid sessions and managing emotional distress through creating a save atmosphere with peer support in subgroup sessions. Communication barriers in hybrid meetings, rejection of digital co-working formats, inattention to PPI in subgroup sessions and time management issues must be considered when planning a project.

在姑息治疗中以患者为目标的指导材料的参与性发展:一项定性评价。
背景:患者和公众参与(PPI)改善了针对患者的指南材料,并在国际上被认为是指南制定的必要条件。虽然目前的研究主要集中在指南制定和姑息治疗中的PPI,但关于其在制定针对患者的指南材料中的实施的证据有限。目的:探讨参与者的经验,并确定参与式制定姑息治疗中以患者为目标的指南材料的支持和挑战因素。设计:采用开放式问题问卷和半结构化访谈,对德国故意镇静最佳实践推荐患者指南的参与性发展过程(2024年4月- 2024年9月)进行定性评估。采用结构化定性内容分析法对数据进行分析。设置/参与者:从负责制定患者指南的编辑小组中随机选择4名PPI成员和4名医疗保健专业人员。结果:经验丰富的ppi成员作为外行人可理解性专家的参与式方法培养了一个平等和尊重的环境,允许所有参与者做出贡献。尽管组织和沟通取得了成功,但混合会议和数字联合工作格式在时间管理和技术挑战方面出现了障碍。参与者不需要额外的方法学培训。分组工作被证明是有效的,并提供了情感支持,但有造成不平等的风险。结论:通过招募经验丰富的PPI顾问委员会成员,通过混合会议提供灵活性,通过在小组会议中创造同伴支持的拯救氛围来管理情绪困扰,可以支持PPI。在规划项目时,必须考虑混合会议中的沟通障碍、对数字联合工作格式的拒绝、分组会议中对PPI的不关注以及时间管理问题。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Palliative Care and Social Practice
Palliative Care and Social Practice Nursing-Advanced and Specialized Nursing
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
37
审稿时长
9 weeks
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书