Should Guidelines Incorporate Evidence on Patient Preferences?

Journal of General Internal Medicine (Impact Factor: 3.42). 09/2009; 24(8):988-90. DOI: 10.1007/s11606-009-1055-0
Source: PubMed
Download full-text


Available from: Craig A Umscheid, Oct 06, 2015
5 Reads
  • Source
    • "While there is evidence to suggest that the public now has a much higher expectation of the quality of service provided, is better educated and 'consumerist' , and requires more information and greater involvement in decisions about treatments, in everyday practice this rarely happens (Towle 2000). Recent research in primary care suggests that the power imbalance remains, with fewer than 10% of encounters meeting basic criteria for informed decision-making, such as discussion of the nature of the decision and asking patients for their preferences (Braddock et al. 1999; Craig and Umscheid 2009). Involvement in end-of-life decision-making is paramount. "
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article describes the recent update to the guideline development methodology of the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC). These methods are being used to develop future HICPAC guidelines, beginning with the guideline on preventing catheter-associated urinary tract infections released in 2009. The article includes a background on HICPAC, the strengths and limitations of the methods it's used over the last two decades, and the rationale behind these recent updates. In addition, we describe the new infrastructure used to develop guidelines at HICPAC, key changes in methodology, and new elements of HICPAC guidelines, like the implementation and audit section. We also describe current challenges to the development of infection control guidelines. The current update builds on past strengths and current advances in guideline development and implementation, and enables HICPAC to improve the validity and usability of its guidelines while also addressing emerging challenges in guideline development in the area of infection prevention and control.
    American journal of infection control 05/2010; 38(4):264-73. DOI:10.1016/j.ajic.2009.12.005 · 2.21 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are systematically developed statements to assist both patient and practitioner decisions. They link the practice of medicine more closely to the body of underlying evidence, shift the burden of evidence review from the individual practitioner to experts, and aim to improve the quality of care. CPGs do not routinely search for or include evidence related to patients’ values and preferences. We argue that they should. We think that such evidence can tell us whether a decision is preference sensitive; how patients feel about important health outcomes, treatment goals, and decisions; and whether preferences vary in different types of patients. The likely effects of reviewing the literature are a general sensitization to the importance of preferences in decision making, the recognition that some decisions are simply all about preferences, a more considered approach to forming preferences among patients and other stakeholders, and more effective integration of preferences into decisions.
    The patient 06/2010; 3(2):1-7. DOI:10.2165/11535370-000000000-00000 · 1.90 Impact Factor
Show more

Similar Publications