Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Developing quality criteria for patient-directed knowledge tools related to clinical practice guidelines. A development and consensus study.
van der Weijden, Trudy; Dreesens, Dunja; Faber, Marjan J; Bos, Nanne; Drenthen, Ton; Maas, Ingrid; Kersten, Sonja; Malanda, Uriëll; van der Scheur, Sander; Post, Heleen; Knops, Anouk.
Afiliación
  • van der Weijden T; MUMC+ CAPRHI, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
  • Dreesens D; MUMC+ CAPRHI, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
  • Faber MJ; Radboudumc, IQ Healthcare, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
  • Bos N; Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research NIVEL, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
  • Drenthen T; Dutch College of General Practitioners, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
  • Maas I; Dutch Association of Medical Specialists, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
  • Kersten S; Dutch Nurses' Association, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
  • Malanda U; Health Care Institute of the Netherlands, Diemen, The Netherlands.
  • van der Scheur S; Health Care Institute of the Netherlands, Diemen, The Netherlands.
  • Post H; Dutch Federation of Patients' Organisations, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
  • Knops A; Dutch Federation of Patients' Organisations, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Health Expect ; 22(2): 201-208, 2019 04.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30417517
BACKGROUND: Patient-directed knowledge tools such as patient versions of guidelines and patient decision aids are increasingly developed to facilitate shared decision making. In this paper, we report how consensus was reached within the Netherlands on quality criteria for development, content and governance of these tools. METHOD: A 12-month development and consensus study. The consortium worked on four work packages: (a) reviewing existing criteria; (b) drafting the quality criteria; (c) safe-guarding the acceptability and feasibility of the draft criteria by participatory research in on-going tool development projects; and (d) gaining formal support from national stakeholders on the quality criteria. RESULTS: We reached consensus on a 8-step guidance; describing minimal quality criteria for (a) the team composition; (b) setting the scope; (c) identifying needs; (d) the content and format; (e) testing the draft; (f) finalizing and approval; (g) dissemination and application, and (h) ownership and revision. The participants of the on-going tool development projects were positive about the quality criteria in general, but divided as to the degree of detail. Whereas some expressed a clear desire for procedural standards, others felt that it would be sufficient to provide only general directions. Despite the different views as to the degree of detail, consensus was reached in three stakeholder meetings. DISCUSSION: We successfully collaborated with all stakeholders and achieved formal support from national stakeholders on a set of minimum criteria for the development process, content and governance of patient-directed knowledge tools.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Participación del Paciente / Técnicas de Apoyo para la Decisión / Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto Tipo de estudio: Guideline / Prognostic_studies / Qualitative_research Límite: Humans País/Región como asunto: Europa Idioma: En Revista: Health Expect Asunto de la revista: PESQUISA EM SERVICOS DE SAUDE / SAUDE PUBLICA Año: 2019 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Países Bajos

Texto completo: 1 Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Participación del Paciente / Técnicas de Apoyo para la Decisión / Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto Tipo de estudio: Guideline / Prognostic_studies / Qualitative_research Límite: Humans País/Región como asunto: Europa Idioma: En Revista: Health Expect Asunto de la revista: PESQUISA EM SERVICOS DE SAUDE / SAUDE PUBLICA Año: 2019 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Países Bajos