{"title":"评估两种涉及残疾患者的方法在制定临床指南中的可接受性、可行性和结果:交叉试点研究。","authors":"Marie-Eve Lamontagne, Marie-Pierre Gagnon, Kadija Perreault, Véronique Gauthier","doi":"10.2196/24319","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This pilot study aims to document the acceptability, feasibility, and outcomes of 2 methods of involving patients in outlining CPG.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02023138; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02023138.</p>","PeriodicalId":36208,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Participatory Medicine","volume":"13 3","pages":"e24319"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8663436/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating the Acceptability, Feasibility, and Outcomes of Two Methods Involving Patients With Disability in Developing Clinical Guidelines: Crossover Pilot Study.\",\"authors\":\"Marie-Eve Lamontagne, Marie-Pierre Gagnon, Kadija Perreault, Véronique Gauthier\",\"doi\":\"10.2196/24319\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This pilot study aims to document the acceptability, feasibility, and outcomes of 2 methods of involving patients in outlining CPG.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02023138; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02023138.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36208,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Participatory Medicine\",\"volume\":\"13 3\",\"pages\":\"e24319\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-11-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8663436/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Participatory Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2196/24319\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Participatory Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/24319","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
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 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.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
