Standards and guidance for developing trustworthy clinical practice guidelines are now available, and a number of leading guidelines adhere to the key standards. Even current trustworthy guidelines, however, generally suffer from a cumbersome development process, suboptimal presentation formats, inefficient dissemination to clinicians at the point of care, high risk of becoming quickly outdated, and suboptimal facilitation of shared decision-making with patients. To address these limitations, we have-in our innovative research program and nonprofit organization, MAGIC (Making GRADE the Irresistible Choice)-constructed a conceptual framework and tools to facilitate the creation, dissemination, and dynamic updating of trustworthy guidelines. We have developed an online application that constitutes an authoring and publication platform that allows guideline content to be written and structured in a database, published directly on our web platform or exported in a computer-interpretable language (eg, XML) enabling dissemination through a wide range of outputs that include electronic medical record systems, web portals, and applications for smartphones/tablets. Modifications in guidelines, such as recommendation updates, will lead to automatic alterations in these outputs with minimal additional labor for guideline authors and publishers, greatly facilitating dynamic updating of guidelines. Semiautomated creation of a new generation of decision aids linked to guideline recommendations should facilitate face-to-face shared decision-making in the clinical encounter. We invite guideline organizations to partner with us (www.magicproject.org) to apply and further improve the tools for their purposes. This work will result in clinical practice guidelines that we cannot only trust, but also easily share and use.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.
"Alternatively, providing ways for readers to tailor the information to themselves by using their own health information may help individuals apply guidelines to their own particular situation. Decision aids, which guide people through a decision while clarifying personal values, can be provided as supplementary resources linked to guidelines and can be semi-automated as demonstrated in the MAGIC guideline project for anti-antithrombotic therapy . These guidelines, like others about Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, explicitly consider patient values and preferences when developing recommendations ; an approach the GRADE system has always considered when deciding the strength of a recommendation [44,45]. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Background
Clinical practice guidelines are typically written for healthcare providers but there is increasing interest in producing versions for the public, patients and carers. The main objective of this review is to identify and synthesise evidence of the public’s attitudes towards clinical practice guidelines and evidence-based recommendations written for providers or the public, together with their awareness of guidelines.
We included quantitative and qualitative studies of any design reporting on public, patient (and their carers) attitudes and awareness of guidelines written for providers or patients/public. We searched electronic databases including MEDLINE, PSYCHINFO, ERIC, ASSIA and the Cochrane Library from 2000 to 2012. We also searched relevant websites, reviewed citations and contacted experts in the field. At least two authors independently screened, abstracted data and assessed the quality of studies. We conducted a thematic analysis of first and second order themes and performed a separate narrative synthesis of patient and public awareness of guidelines.
We reviewed 5415 records and included 26 studies (10 qualitative studies, 13 cross sectional and 3 randomised controlled trials) involving 24 887 individuals. Studies were mostly good to fair quality. The thematic analysis resulted in four overarching themes: Applicability of guidelines; Purpose of guidelines for patient; Purpose of guidelines for health care system and physician; and Properties of guidelines. Overall, participants had mixed attitudes towards guidelines; some participants found them empowering but many saw them as a way of rationing care. Patients were also concerned that the information may not apply to their own health care situations. Awareness of guidelines ranged from 0-79%, with greater awareness in participants surveyed on national guideline websites.
There are many factors, not only formatting, that may affect the uptake and use of guideline-derived material by the public. Producers need to make clear how the information is relevant to the reader and how it can be used to make healthcare improvements although there were problems with data quality. Awareness of guidelines is generally low and guideline producers cannot assume that the public has a more positive perception of their material than of alternative sources of health information.
BMC Health Services Research 07/2014; 14(1):321. DOI:10.1186/1472-6963-14-321 · 1.71 Impact Factor
"These endeavors, amongst other things, have targeted the vexing problem of guidelines and conflicts of interest, balancing the pros of having input from experts and assuring that conflicts of interest do not influence recommendations , . At the same time, methodologists continue work to develop frameworks and tools to facilitate the development and dynamic updating of trustworthy guidelines . "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Clinical guidelines (CGs) are popular for healthcare decision making but their acceptability and use by healthcare providers is influenced by numerous factors. Some of these factors are professional-related, such as knowledge and perceptions of and attitudes toward CGs in general. The aim of our study was to evaluate attitudes and perceptions of Spanish physicians towards CGs.
We coordinated six discussion groups with a total of 46 physicians. The participants were drawn from 12 medical specialties from both specialized and primary care. We recorded the sessions and transcribed the content verbatim. We analyzed the data using an approach based on the grounded theory.
We identified two main constructs that defined the physicians' perceptions towards guidelines: knowledge and usefulness. "Knowledge" defined the theoretical meanings of guidelines, while "Usefulness" referred to the pragmatic approach to guidelines. These constructs were interrelated through a series of categories such as confidence, usability, accessibility, dissemination and formats.
In our study, the constructs that impacted most on physician's attitudes to clinical guidelines were knowledge and usefulness. The tension between the theoretical and the pragmatic constructs determined the attitudes and how physicians use guidelines. Groups developing guidelines should ask relevant clinical questions and develop implementable and context specific recommendations. Developers should be explicit and consistent in the development and presentation of recommendations.
PLoS ONE 02/2014; 9(2):e86065. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0086065 · 3.23 Impact Factor