Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-01-2017 | Research

Using patient values and preferences to inform the importance of health outcomes in practice guideline development following the GRADE approach

Authors: Yuan Zhang, Pablo Alonso Coello, Jan Brożek, Wojtek Wiercioch, Itziar Etxeandia-Ikobaltzeta, Elie A. Akl, Joerg J. Meerpohl, Waleed Alhazzani, Alonso Carrasco-Labra, Rebecca L. Morgan, Reem A. Mustafa, John J. Riva, Ainsley Moore, Juan José Yepes-Nuñez, Carlos Cuello-Garcia, Zulfa AlRayees, Veena Manja, Maicon Falavigna, Ignacio Neumann, Romina Brignardello-Petersen, Nancy Santesso, Bram Rochwerg, Andrea Darzi, Maria Ximena Rojas, Yaser Adi, Claudia Bollig, Reem Waziry, Holger J. Schünemann

Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes | Issue 1/2017

Abstract

Background

There are diverse opinions and confusion about defining and including patient values and preferences (i.e. the importance people place on the health outcomes) in the guideline development processes. This article aims to provide an overview of a process for systematically incorporating values and preferences in guideline development.

Methods

In 2013 and 2014, we followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to adopt, adapt and develop 226 recommendations in 22 guidelines for the Ministry of Health of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. To collect context-specific values and preferences for each recommendation, we performed systematic reviews, asked clinical experts to provide feedback according to their clinical experience, and consulted patient representatives.

Results

We found several types of studies addressing the importance of outcomes, including those reporting utilities, non-utility measures of health states based on structured questionnaires or scales, and qualitative studies. Guideline panels used the relative importance of outcomes based on values and preferences to weigh the balance of desirable and undesirable consequences of alternative intervention options. However, we found few studies addressing local values and preferences.

Conclusions

Currently there are different but no firmly established processes for integrating patient values and preferences in healthcare decision-making of practice guideline development. With GRADE Evidence-to-Decision (EtD) frameworks, we provide an empirical strategy to find and incorporate values and preferences in guidelines by performing systematic reviews and eliciting information from guideline panel members and patient representatives. However, more research and practical guidance are needed on how to search for relevant studies and grey literature, assess the certainty of this evidence, and best summarize and present the findings.

Available only for authorised users

World Health Organization. WHO Handbook for Guideline Development. 2nd ed. Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2014.

Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, Schunemann HJ. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336:924–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Schunemann HJ, Wiercioch W, Etxeandia I, Falavigna M, Santesso N, Mustafa R, Ventresca M, Brignardello-Petersen R, Laisaar KT, Kowalski S, et al. Guidelines 2.0: systematic development of a comprehensive checklist for a successful guideline enterprise. CMAJ. 2014;186:E123–142.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Schunemann HJ, Mustafa R, Brozek J, Santesso N, Alonso-Coello P, Guyatt G, Scholten R, Langendam M, Leeflang MM, Akl EA, et al. Development of the GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks for tests in clinical practice and public health. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;76:89-98. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.032.

Alonso-Coello P, Schünemann HJ, Moberg J, Brignardello-Petersen R, Akl EA, Davoli M, Treweek S, Mustafa RA, Rada G, Rosenbaum S, et al. GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 1: Introduction. BMJ. 2016;353:i2016.

Alonso-Coello P, Oxman AD, Moberg J, Brignardello-Petersen R, Akl EA, Davoli M, Treweek S, Mustafa RA, Vandvik PO, Meerpohl 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.

Kelson M, Akl EA, Bastian H, Cluzeau F, Curtis JR, Guyatt G, Montori VM, Oliver S, Schünemann HJ. Integrating values and consumer involvement in guidelines with the patient at the center: article 8 in integrating and coordinating efforts in COPD guideline development. An official ATS/ERS workshop report. Proc Am Thorac Soc. 2012;9:262–8.CrossRefPubMed

Cluzeau F, Wedzicha JA, Kelson M, Corn J, Kunz R, Walsh J, Schunemann HJ. Stakeholder involvement: how to do it right: article 9 in Integrating and coordinating efforts in COPD guideline development. An official ATS/ERS workshop report. Proc Am Thorac Soc. 2012;9:269–73.CrossRefPubMed

Schunemann H, Fretheim A, Oxman A. Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 10. Integrating values and consumer involvement. Health Res Policy Syst. 2006;4:22.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Andrews JC, Schunemann HJ, Oxman AD, Pottie K, Meerpohl JJ, Coello PA, Rind D, Montori VM, Brito JP, Norris S, et al. GRADE guidelines: 15. Going from evidence to recommendation-determinants of a recommendation’s direction and strength. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66:726–35.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ. 1996;312:71–2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

van der Weijden T, Legare F, Boivin A, Burgers JS, van Veenendaal H, Stiggelbout AM, Faber M, Elwyn G. How to integrate individual patient values and preferences in clinical practice guidelines? A research protocol. Implement Sci. 2010;5:10.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Murad MH, Montori VM, Guyatt GH. Incorporating patient preferences in evidence-based medicine. JAMA. 2008;300:2483. author reply 2483–2484.CrossRefPubMed

14.

MacLean S, Mulla S, Akl EA, Jankowski M, Vandvik PO, Ebrahim S, McLeod S, Bhatnagar N, Guyatt GH. Patient values and preferences in decision making for antithrombotic therapy: a systematic review: antithrombotic therapy and prevention of thrombosis, 9th ed: American college of chest physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest. 2012;141:e1S–23S.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Krahn M, Naglie G. The next step in guideline development: incorporating patient preferences. JAMA. 2008;300:436–8.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Treweek S, Oxman AD, Alderson P, Bossuyt PM, Brandt L, Brozek J, Davoli M, Flottorp S, Harbour R, Hill S, et al. Developing and Evaluating Communication strategies to support Informed Decisions and practice based on Evidence (DECIDE): protocol and preliminary results. Implement Sci. 2013;8:6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, Eccles M, Falck-Ytter Y, Flottorp S, Guyatt GH, Harbour RT, Haugh MC, Henry D, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2004;328:1490.

18.

Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, Norris S, Falck-Ytter Y, Glasziou P, DeBeer H, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:383–94.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. Valuing health states: a comparison of methods. J Health Econ. 1996;15:209–31.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Gafni A, Birch S. Preferences for outcomes in economic evaluation: an economic approach to addressing economic problems. Soc Sci Med. 1995;40:767–76.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Torrance GW. Utility measurement in healthcare: the things I never got to. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24:1069–78.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Giacomini MK, Cook DJ, Streiner DL, Anand SS. Using practice guidelines to allocate medical technologies. An ethics framework. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16:987–1002.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Hofmann B. Toward a procedure for integrating moral issues in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:312–8.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Holger Schunemann RM, Jan Brozek, Alonso Carrasco-Labra, Romina Brignardello-Peterson, Wojtek Wiercioch, Saudi Arabian Handbook for Healthcare Guideline Development. http://www.moh.gov.sa/endepts/Proofs/Documents/SA%20Handbook%20_AB%20v28-12-2014_18Dec%202014%20(2).pdf. Accessed 25 Aug 2016.

25.

Schünemann HJ, Wiercioch W, Brozek J, Etxeandia-Ikobaltzeta I, Mustafa RA, Manja V, Brignardello-Petersen R, Neumann I, Falavigna M, Alhazzani W, et al. GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks for adoption, adaptation, and de novo development of trustworthy recommendations: GRADE-ADOLOPMENT. J Clin Epidemiol 2016. (Article in Progress).

26.

Garg AX, Hackam D, Tonelli M. Systematic review and meta-analysis: when one study is just not enough. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2008;3:253–60.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Higgins JPT, Green S, (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from http://handbook.cochrane.org/. Accessed 17 Mar 2017.

28.

Longworth L, Yang Y, Young T, Mulhern B, Hernandez Alava M, Mukuria C, Rowen D, Tosh J, Tsuchiya A, Evans P, et al. Use of generic and condition-specific measures of health-related quality of life in NICE decision-making: a systematic review, statistical modelling and survey. Health Technol Assess. 2014;18:1–224.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Furlong WJ, Feeny DH, Torrance GW, Barr RD. The Health Utilities Index (HUI) system for assessing health-related quality of life in clinical studies. Ann Med. 2001;33:375–84.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Starkie HJ, Briggs AH, Chambers MG, Jones P. Predicting EQ-5D values using the SGRQ. Value Health. 2011;14:354–60.CrossRefPubMed

31.

DeJean D, Giacomini M, Vanstone M, Brundisini F. Patient experiences of depression and anxiety with chronic disease: a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2013;13:1–33.

32.

Torrance GW. Preferences for health states: a review of measurement methods. Mead Johnson Symp Perinat Dev Med. 1982;(20):37-45.

33.

Longworth L, Rowen D. NICE DSU Technical Support Document 10: The use of mapping methods to estimate health state utility values. 2011. Available from http://www.nicedsu.org.uk. Accessed 25 Aug 2016.

34.

Gafni A. The standard gamble method: what is being measured and how it is interpreted. Health Serv Res. 1994;29:207–24.PubMedPubMedCentral

35.

The Saudi Center for Evidence Based Healthcare (EBHC): Clinical Practice Guidelines. 2015. Available from: http://www.moh.gov.sa/endepts/Proofs/Pages/Guidelines.aspx. Accessed 25 Aug 2016.

36.

Al-Hameed F, Al-Dorzi HM, Shamy A, Qadi A, Bakhsh E, Aboelnazar E, Abdelaal M, Al Khuwaitir T, Al-Moamary MS, Al-Hajjaj MS, et al. The Saudi clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis of the first deep venous thrombosis of the lower extremity. Ann Thorac Med. 2015;10:3–15.PubMedPubMedCentral

37.

Brozek JL, Bousquet J, Baena-Cagnani CE, Bonini S, Canonica GW, Casale TB, van Wijk RG, Ohta K, Zuberbier T, Schunemann HJ. Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines: 2010 revision. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2010;126:466–76.CrossRefPubMed

38.

World Health Organization. Estonian Handbook for Guidelines Development. Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2011.

39.

National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: The guidelines manual. 2012. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Available from: www.nice.org.uk. Accessed 17 Mar 2017.

40.

Graham R, Mancher M, Miller Wolman D, Greenfield S, Steinberg E. Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust. Washington DC: the National Academy of Sciences; 2011.

41.

Lin OS, Kozarek RA, Gluck M, Jiranek GC, Koch J, Kowdley KV, Irani S, Nguyen M, Dominitz JA. Preference for colonoscopy versus computerized tomographic colonography: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27:1349–60.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

42.

Mohiuddin S, Payne K. Utility values for adults with unipolar depression: systematic review and meta-analysis. Med Decis Mak. 2014;34:666–85.CrossRef

43.

Peeters Y, Stiggelbout AM. Health state valuations of patients and the general public analytically compared: a meta-analytical comparison of patient and population health state utilities. Value Health. 2010;13:306–9.CrossRefPubMed

44.

Sadique MZ, Legood R. Women’s preferences regarding options for management of atypical, borderline or low-grade cervical cytological abnormalities: A review of the evidence. Cytopathology. 2012;23:161–6.CrossRefPubMed

45.

Bremner KE, Chong CA, Tomlinson G, Alibhai SM, Krahn MD. A review and meta-analysis of prostate cancer utilities. Med Decis Mak. 2007;27:288–98.CrossRef

46.

Cronin M, Meaney S Fau - Jepson NJA, Jepson Nj Fau - Allen PF, Allen PF. A qualitative study of trends in patient preferences for the management of the partially dentate state. Gerodontology. 2009;26(2):137-42.

47.

Jackson LJ, Auguste P, Low N, Roberts TE. Valuing the health states associated with Chlamydia trachomatis infections and their sequelae: a systematic review of economic evaluations and primary studies. Value Health. 2014;17:116–30.CrossRefPubMed

48.

Nutt DJ, King LA, Phillips LD. Drug harms in the UK: a multicriteria decision analysis. Lancet. 2010;376:1558–65.CrossRefPubMed

Title: Using patient values and preferences to inform the importance of health outcomes in practice guideline development following the GRADE approach
Authors: Yuan Zhang
Pablo Alonso Coello
Jan Brożek
Wojtek Wiercioch
Itziar Etxeandia-Ikobaltzeta
Elie A. Akl
Joerg J. Meerpohl
Waleed Alhazzani
Alonso Carrasco-Labra
Rebecca L. Morgan
Reem A. Mustafa
John J. Riva
Ainsley Moore
Juan José Yepes-Nuñez
Carlos Cuello-Garcia
Zulfa AlRayees
Veena Manja
Maicon Falavigna
Ignacio Neumann
Romina Brignardello-Petersen
Nancy Santesso
Bram Rochwerg
Andrea Darzi
Maria Ximena Rojas
Yaser Adi
Claudia Bollig
Reem Waziry
Holger J. Schünemann
Publication date: 01-01-2017
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1477-7525
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-017-0621-0

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Using patient values and preferences to inform the importance of health outcomes in practice guideline development following the GRADE approach

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

Validity and test-retest reliability of the self-completion adult social care outcomes toolkit (ASCOT-SCT4) with adults with long-term physical, sensory and mental health conditions in England

The Kessler psychological distress scale: translation and validation of an Arabic version

Validation of the French versions of the Hirschsprung’s disease and Anorectal malformations Quality of Life (HAQL) questionnaires for adolescents and adults

Validation of the dutch version of the health education impact questionnaire (HEIQ) and comparison of the Dutch translation with the English, German and French HEIQ

Psychometric properties of the painDETECT questionnaire in rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis and spondyloarthritis: Rasch analysis and test-retest reliability

Pre-event quality of life and its influence on the post-event quality of life among patients with ST elevation and non-ST elevation myocardial infarctions of a premier province of Sri Lanka