评估在制定临床指南中涉及残疾患者的两种方法的可接受性、可行性和结果：交叉试点研究。

Evaluating the Acceptability, Feasibility, and Outcomes of Two Methods Involving Patients With Disability in Developing Clinical Guidelines: Crossover Pilot Study.

作者信息

Lamontagne Marie-Eve, Gagnon Marie-Pierre, Perreault Kadija, Gauthier Véronique

机构信息

Faculté de médecine, Université Laval, Québec, QC, Canada.

Centre interdisciplinaire de recherche en réadaptation et en intégration sociale, Québec, QC, Canada.

出版信息

J Particip Med. 2021 Nov 23;13(3):e24319. doi: 10.2196/24319.

DOI:10.2196/24319

PMID:34812733

原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8663436/

Abstract

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.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02023138; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02023138.

摘要

背景

让患者和公众参与临床实践指南（CPG）的制定被认为对指南质量有显著贡献，但尚未对各种协同设计策略的优势进行实证比较，这使得难以选择一种策略而舍弃另一种。

目的

本试点研究旨在记录让患者参与CPG概述的两种方法的可接受性、可行性和结果。

方法

对创伤性脑损伤患者进行了一项单盲交叉实用性研究。患者尝试了两种制定临床实践建议的替代方法（即讨论组和维基）。参与者对这两种方法的可接受性进行评分，并使用诸如完成这两种方法的参与者数量以及所需支持干预措施数量等指标来评估可行性。对方法不知情的专家独立对参与者的结果建议在清晰度、准确性、适当性和实用性方面进行评分。