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
. 2024 Oct 9;24(1):1211.
doi: 10.1186/s12913-024-11563-2.

Awareness, use and perception of patient versions of clinical practice guidelines - a national cross-sectional survey among patients with a cancer diagnosis and healthcare providers

S Blödt  1 , S Erstling  1 , M Becker  2 , G Carl  3 , M Follmann  4 , S Frenz  5 , C Holmberg  6 , T Langer  4 , A Pachanov  7   8 , D Pieper  2   7   8 , M Nothacker  9
Affiliations

Awareness, use and perception of patient versions of clinical practice guidelines - a national cross-sectional survey among patients with a cancer diagnosis and healthcare providers

S Blödt et al. BMC Health Serv Res. .

Abstract

Background: To investigate awareness, use, and perceptions of the patient guidelines (PGs) of the German Guideline Program in Oncology (GGPO) and to explore general preferences regarding cancer information among patients and healthcare providers (HCPs).

Methods: Two cross-sectional surveys among patients with cancer (November 2020-May 2021) and among HCPs (April -June 2021) were set up as anonymised, self-administered, semi-structured online surveys, including open-ended questions. Data were analysed with descriptive statistics and qualitative thematic analysis. Patients were recruited from national self-help organisations and certified cancer centres located all over Germany. HCPs were recruited from cancer centres, scientific medical societies and guideline groups.

Results: Of 816 participating patients, 45% were aware of the GGPO-PGs, while 55% of the 455 participating HCPs were aware of them. Of those aware of the GGPO-PGs, 65% of patients and 86% of HCPs perceived them as helpful, while 95% in both groups saw them as comprehensive. Seventy-five percent of patients and 85% of HCPs were satisfied with the GGPO-PGs, 22%/13% were partially satisfied, and 3%/2% were rather/not at all satisfied. In addition to self-help organisations, physicians and hospitals were perceived as central in distributing the GGPO-PGs. More patients (78%) than HCPs (56%) stated a preference for detailed information, although the wish for concise information - e.g. decision aids - was concurrently expressed by the majority of all participants. Thematic analysis showed that up-to-dateness, trustworthiness, and supportive messaging are important properties for PGs.

Conclusions: HCPs found the GGPO-PGs helpful, but awareness was low, which suggests that dissemination should be improved. This is also true for patients; however, further research needs to be done to increase the helpfulness of PGs for patients. Oncological PGs seem to be needed in different formats according to patients' situational needs. Theory-driven research should investigate how to best frame patient information in a supportive way.

Keywords: Cancer; Clinical practice guidelines; Dissemination; Formats; Healthcare providers; Implementation; Oncology; Patient version; Self-help organisations.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Susanne Blödt, Monika Nothacker and Sabine Erstling are employed at the Institute for Medical Knowledge Management of the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF-IMWi). The AWMF-IMWi receives institutional third-party funding from the German Cancer Aid for methodological support of the German Guideline Program in Oncology. Markus Follmann and Thomas Langer are employed at the German Cancer Society and are partially funded by the German Cancer Aid for coordinating the GGPO and providing methodological support for the guideline groups developing patent versions. Monika Becker and Dawid Pieper received institutional funding for the development of oncological patient versions of guidelines in Germany. Ernst-Günther Carl, Stefanie Frenz, Christine Holmberg and Alexander Pachanov did not report any competing interests.

References

    1. Blodt S, Kaiser M, Adam Y, Adami S, Schultze M, Muller-Nordhorn J, et al. Understanding the role of health information in patients’ experiences: secondary analysis of qualitative narrative interviews with people diagnosed with cancer in Germany. BMJ Open. 2018;8(3):e019576. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Robert Koch-Institute. Krebs in Deutschland für 2017/2018: Zentrum für Krebsregisterdaten Gesellschaft der epidemiologischen Krebsregister in Deutschland e.V.; 2021 [13. :[Available from: https://www.krebsdaten.de/Krebs/DE/Content/Publikationen/Krebs_in_Deutsc....
    1. Ministry of Health. Ziele des Nationalen Krebsplans - NKP 2008. Available from: https://www.bundesgesundheitsministerium.de/themen/praevention/nationale.... Cited 2022 August.
    1. German Cancer Society e.V. . Certification 2022. Available from: https://www.krebsgesellschaft.de/gcs/german-cancer-society/certification.... Cited 2022 August.
    1. Institute of Medicine. Clinical practice guidelines we can trust. Graham R, Mancher M, Wolman DM, Greenfield S, Steinberg E, editors. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2011:290. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources