Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2009 Aug;24(8):977-82.
doi: 10.1007/s11606-009-0987-8. Epub 2009 Apr 23.

How well do guidelines incorporate evidence on patient preferences?

Christopher A K Y Chong  1 , Ing-je Chen, Gary Naglie, Murray D Krahn
Affiliations
Review

How well do guidelines incorporate evidence on patient preferences?

Christopher A K Y Chong et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2009 Aug.

Abstract

Background: Clinical practice guidelines (CPG) are meant to consider important values such as patient preferences.

Objective: To assess how well clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) integrate evidence on patient preferences compared with that on treatment effectiveness.

Design: A cross-sectional review of a listing in 2006 of CPGs judged to be the best in their fields by an external joint government and medical association body.

Study selection: Exclusion criterion was unavailability in electronic format. Sixty-five of 71 listed CPGs met selection criteria.

Measurements: Two instruments originally constructed to evaluate the overall quality of CPGs were adapted to specifically assess the quality of integrating information on patient preference vs. treatment effectiveness. Counts of words and references in each CPG associated with patient preferences vs. treatment effectiveness were performed. Two reviewers independently assessed each CPG.

Main results: Based on our adapted instruments, CPGs scored significantly higher (p < 0.001) on the quality of integrating treatment effectiveness compared with patient preferences evidence (mean instrument one scores on a scale of 0.25 to 1.00: 0.65 vs. 0.43; mean instrument two scores on a scale of 0 to 1: 0.58 vs. 0.18). The average percentage of the total word count dedicated to treatment effectiveness was 24.2% compared with 4.6% for patient preferences. The average percentage of references citing treatment effectiveness evidence was 36.6% compared with 6.0% for patient preferences.

Conclusion: High quality CPGs poorly integrate evidence on patient preferences. Barriers to incorporating preference evidence into CPGs should be addressed.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Decision analytic conceptual framework for preferences. Squares indicate points when physicians/patients make decisions about health care; circles indicate the probability of an event happening. Arrows indicate where types of evidence help inform the decision.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Singer DE, Albers GW, Dalen JE, Go AS, Halperin JL, Manning WJ. Antithrombotic therapy in atrial fibrillation: the Seventh ACCP Conference on Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy. Chest. 2004;126:429S–456S. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Holoweiko M. What cookbook medicine will mean for you. Med Econ. 1989; 66: 118–20, 125–117, 130–113. - PubMed
    1. Sackett D, Strauss S, Richardson W, Rosenberg W, Haynes R. Evidence-based medicine: how to practice and teach EBM. 2nd ed. London: Churchill Livingstone; 2000.
    1. Hayward RS, Wilson MC, Tunis SR, Bass EB, Guyatt G. Users’ guides to the medical literature. VIII. How to use clinical practice guidelines. A. Are the recommendations valid? The Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 1995;274:570–4. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Gafni A, Charles C, Whelan T. The physician-patient encounter: the physician as a perfect agent for the patient versus the informed treatment decision-making model. Soc Sci Med. 1998;47:347–54. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms