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... 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
Dreesens, D.; Stiggelbout, A.; Agoritsas, T.; Elwyn, G.; Flottorp, S.; Grimshaw, J.; ... ; Weijden, T. van der 2019
Objective: Patient-directed knowledge tools are designed to engage patients in dialogue or deliberation, to support patient decision-making or self-care of chronic conditions. However, an abundance... Show moreObjective: Patient-directed knowledge tools are designed to engage patients in dialogue or deliberation, to support patient decision-making or self-care of chronic conditions. However, an abundance of these exists. The tools themselves and their purposes are not always clearly defined; creating challenges for developers and users (professionals, patients). The study's aim was to develop a conceptual framework of patient-directed knowledge tool types.Methods: A face-to-face evidence-informed consensus meeting with 15 international experts. After the meeting, the framework went through two rounds of feedback before informal consensus was reached.Results: A conceptual framework containing five patient-directed knowledge tool types was developed. The first part of the framework describes the tools' purposes and the second focuses on the tools' core elements.Conclusion: The framework provides clarity on which types of patient-directed tools exist, the purposes they serve, and which core elements they prototypically include. It is a working framework and will require further refinement as the area develops, alongside validation with a broader group of stakeholders.Practice implications: The framework assists developers and users to know which type a tool belongs, its purpose and core elements, helping them to develop and use the right tool for the right job. (C) 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Show less
Bekkering, G.E.; Agoritsas, T.; Lytvyn, L.; Heen, A.F.; Feller, M.; Moutzouri, E.; ... ; Vermandere, M. 2019
Clinical question What are the benefits and harms of thyroid hormones for adults with subclinical hypothyroidism (SCH)? This guideline was triggered by a recent systematic review of randomised... Show moreClinical question What are the benefits and harms of thyroid hormones for adults with subclinical hypothyroidism (SCH)? This guideline was triggered by a recent systematic review of randomised controlled trials, which could alter practice. Current practice Current guidelines tend to recommend thyroid hormones for adults with thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) levels >10 mIU/L and for people with lower TSH values who are young, symptomatic, or have specific indications for prescribing.Recommendation The guideline panel issues a strong recommendation against thyroid hormones in adults with SCH (elevated TSH levels and normal free T4 (thyroxine) levels). It does not apply to women who are trying to become pregnant or patients with TSH >20 mIU/L. It may not apply to patients with severe symptoms or young adults (such as those <= 30 years old).How this guideline was created A guideline panel including patients, clinicians, and methodologists produced this recommendation in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines using the GRADE approach.The evidence The systematic review included 21 trials with 2192 participants. For adults with SCH, thyroid hormones consistently demonstrate no clinically relevant benefits for quality of life or thyroid related symptoms, including depressive symptoms, fatigue, and body mass index (moderate to high quality evidence). Thyroid hormones may have little or no effect on cardiovascular events or mortality (low quality evidence), but harms were measured in only one trial with few events at two years' follow-up.Understanding the recommendation The panel concluded that almost all adults with SCH would not benefit from treatment with thyroid hormones. Other factors in the strong recommendation include the burden of lifelong management and uncertainty on potential harms. Instead, clinicians should monitor the progression or resolution of the thyroid dysfunction in these adults. Recommendations are made actionable for clinicians and their patients through visual overviews. These provide the relative and absolute benefits and harms of thyroid hormones in multilayered evidence summaries and decision aids available in MAGIC (https://app.magicapp.org/) to support shared decisions and adaptation of this guideline. Show less
