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
. 2019 Apr;22(2):201-208.
doi: 10.1111/hex.12843. Epub 2018 Nov 11.

Developing quality criteria for patient-directed knowledge tools related to clinical practice guidelines. A development and consensus study

Affiliations

Developing quality criteria for patient-directed knowledge tools related to clinical practice guidelines. A development and consensus study

Trudy van der Weijden et al. Health Expect. 2019 Apr.

Abstract

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.

Keywords: clinical practice guidelines; patient decision aids; patient information; patient involvement; patient participation; patient versions of guidelines; quality standards; shared decision making.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

All authors are involved in the development of clinical practice guidelines, none of them has any commercial interest, and they all stem from non‐profit organizations.

References

    1. Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy‐five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up? PLoS Med. 2010;7(9):e1000326. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Brouwers M, Stacey D, O'Connor A. Knowledge creation: synthesis, tools and products. CMAJ. 2010;182:E68‐72. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Richards T, Montori VM, Godlee F, Lapsley P, Paul D. Let the patient revolution begin. BMJ. 2013;346:f2614. - PubMed
    1. Qaseem A, Forland F, Macbeth F, et al. Guidelines International Network: toward international standards for clinical practice guidelines. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156:525‐531. - PubMed
    1. Alonso‐Coello P, Oxman AD, Moberg J, et al. GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 2: Clinical practice guidelines. BMJ. 2016;353:i2089. - PubMed

Publication types