Role of patient preferences in clinical practice guidelines: a multiple methods study using guidelines from oncology as a case

Gartner, F.R.; Portielje, J.E.; Langendam, M.; Hairwassers, D.; Agoritsas, T.; Gijsen, B.; Liefers, G.J.; Pieterse, A.H.; Stiggelbout, A.M.

doi:doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032483

Objective Many treatment decisions are preference-sensitive and call for shared decision-making, notably when benefits are limited or uncertain, and harms impact quality of life. We explored if clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) acknowledge preference-sensitive decisions in how they motivate and phrase their recommendations.Design We performed a qualitative analysis of the content of CPGs and verified the results in semistructured interviews with CPG panel members.Setting Dutch oncology CPGs issued in 2010 or later, concerning primary treatment with curative intent.Participants 14 CPG panel members.Main outcomes For treatment recommendations from six CPG modules, two researchers extracted the following: strength of recommendation in terms of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation and its consistency with the CPG text; completeness of presentation of benefits and harms; incorporation of patient preferences; statements on the panel's benefits-harm trade...Show moreObjective Many treatment decisions are preference-sensitive and call for shared decision-making, notably when benefits are limited or uncertain, and harms impact quality of life. We explored if clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) acknowledge preference-sensitive decisions in how they motivate and phrase their recommendations.Design We performed a qualitative analysis of the content of CPGs and verified the results in semistructured interviews with CPG panel members.Setting Dutch oncology CPGs issued in 2010 or later, concerning primary treatment with curative intent.Participants 14 CPG panel members.Main outcomes For treatment recommendations from six CPG modules, two researchers extracted the following: strength of recommendation in terms of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation and its consistency with the CPG text; completeness of presentation of benefits and harms; incorporation of patient preferences; statements on the panel's benefits-harm trade-off underlying recommendation; and advice on patient involvement in decision-making.Results We identified 32 recommendations, 18 were acknowledged preference-sensitive decisions. Three of 14 strong recommendations should have been weak based on the module text. The reporting of benefits and harms, and their probabilities, was sufficiently complete and clear to inform the strength of the recommendation in one of the six modules only. Numerical probabilities were seldom presented. None of the modules presented information on patient preferences. CPG panel's preferences were not made explicit, but appeared to have impacted 15 of 32 recommendations. Advice to involve patients and their preferences in decision-making was given for 20 recommendations (14 weak). Interviewees confirmed these findings. Explanations for lack of information were, for example, that clinicians know the information and that CPGs must be short. Explanations for trade-offs made were cultural-historical preferences, compliance with daily care, presumed role of CPGs and lack of time.Conclusions The motivation and phrasing of CPG recommendations do not stimulate choice awareness and a neutral presentation of options, thus hindering shared decision-making.Show less

Leiden University Scholarly Publications

View statistics

In Collections

Role of patient preferences in clinical practice guidelines: a multiple methods study using guidelines from oncology as a case