Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

‘New’ Evidence for Clinical Practice Guidelines

Should we Search for ‘Preference Evidence’?

  • Current Opinion
  • Published:
The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are systematically developed statements to assist both patient and practitioner decisions. They link the practice of medicine more closely to the body of underlying evidence, shift the burden of evidence review from the individual practitioner to experts, and aim to improve the quality of care. CPGs do not routinely search for or include evidence related to patients’ values and preferences. We argue that they should. We think that such evidence can tell us whether a decision is preference sensitive; how patients feel about important health outcomes, treatment goals, and decisions; and whether preferences vary in different types of patients. The likely effects of reviewing the literature are a general sensitization to the importance of preferences in decision making, the recognition that some decisions are simply all about preferences, a more considered approach to forming preferences among patients and other stakeholders, and more effective integration of preferences into decisions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Davis D, Goldman J, Palda V. Handbook on clinical practice guidelines. Ottawa (ON): Canadian Medical Association, 2007: 34

    Google Scholar 

  2. Krahn M, Naglie G. The next step in guideline development: incorporating patient preferences. JAMA 2008; 300(4): 436–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. O’Connor AM, Rostom A, Fiset V, et al. Decision aids for patients facing health treatment or screening decisions: systematic review. BMJ 1999; 319(7212): 731–4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Volk RJ, Cass AR, Spann SJ. A randomized controlled trial of shared decision making for prostate cancer screening. Arch Fam Med 1999; 8: 333–40

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Sculpher M, Gafni A, Watt I. Shared treatment decision making in a collectively funded health care system: possible conflicts and some potential solutions. Soc Sci Med 2002; 54(9): 1369–77

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Florin D, Dixon J. Public involvement in health care. BMJ 2004; 328(7432): 159–61

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Pagliari C, Topalian J. Consumer involvement in guideline development: an international survey of strategies and experiences. Guideline International Network Conference; 2007 Aug 22–25; Toronto (ON)

  9. Dolan P, Tsuchiya A, Wailoo A. NICE’s citizen’s council: what do we ask them, and how? Lancet 2003; 362(9387): 918–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. CDR process [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cadth.ca/index.php/en/cdr/process [Accessed 2010 Feb 3]

  11. Guidelines International Network [online]. Available from URL: http://www.g-i-n.net/index.cfm?fuseaction=fuseaction_28&fusesubaction=article&documentid=74&articleID=199 [Accessed 2010 Mar 1]

  12. Chong CA, Chen IJ, Naglie G, et al. How well do guidelines incorporate evidence on patient preferences? J Gen Intern Med 2009; 24(8): 977–82

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. AGREE Collaboration. Development and validation of an international appraisal instrument for assessing the quality of clinical practice guidelines: the AGREE project. Qual Saf Health Care 2003; 12(1): 18–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Shaneyfelt TM, Centor RM. Reassessment of clinical practice guidelines: go gently into that good night. JAMA 2009; 301(8): 868–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Umscheid CA. Should guidelines incorporate evidence on patient preferences? J Gen Intern Med 2009; 24(8): 988–90

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Alibhai SM, Naglie G, Nam R, et al. Do older men benefit from curative therapy of localized prostate cancer? J Clin Oncol 2003; 21(17): 3318–27

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Torrance GW, Feeny D. Utilities and quality-adjusted life years. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1989; 5: 559–75

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Krahn M, Ritvo P, Irvine J, et al. Patient and community preferences for outcomes in prostate cancer: implications for clinical policy. Med Care 2003; 41(1): 153–64

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Volk RJ, Cantor SB, Cass AR, et al. Preferences of husbands and wives for outcomes of prostate cancer screening and treatment. J Gen Intern Med 2004; 19(4): 339–48

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Cantor SB, Volk RJ, Krahn MD, et al. Concordance of couples’ prostate cancer screening recommendations from a decision analysis. Patient 2008; 1(1): 11–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sanda MG, Dunn RL, Michalski J, et al. Quality of life and satisfaction with outcome among prostate-cancer survivors. N Engl J Med 2008; 358(12): 1250–61

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Willener R, Hantikainen V. Individual quality of life following radical prostatectomy in men with prostate cancer. Urol Nurs 2005; 25(2): 88–90, 95-100

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Constantinescu F, Goucher S, Weinstein A, et al. Understanding why rheumatoid arthritis patient treatment preferences differ by race. Arthritis Rheum 2009; 61(4): 413–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Tong A, Morton R, Howard K, et al. Adolescent experiences following organ transplantation: a systematic review of qualitative studies. J Pediatr 2009; 155(4): 542–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Van HL, Schoevers RA, Dekker J. Predicting the outcome of antidepressants and psychotherapy for depression: a qualitative, systematic review. Harv Rev Psychiatry 2008; 16(4): 225–34

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Detsky AS, Naglie G, Krahn MD, et al. Primer on medical decision analysis: part 1. Getting started. Med Decis Making 1997; 17(2): 123–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Haynes RB, Devereaux PJ, Guyatt GH. Clinical expertise in the era of evidence-based medicine and patient choice. ACP J Club 2002; 136(2): A11–4

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative, Department of Medicine and Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

    Murray Krahn

  2. Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, 44 College Street, Room 600, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 3M2, Canada

    Murray Krahn

Authors
  1. Murray Krahn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Krahn, M. ‘New’ Evidence for Clinical Practice Guidelines. Patient-Patient-Centered-Outcome-Res 3, 71–77 (2010). https://doi.org/10.2165/11535370-000000000-00000

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/11535370-000000000-00000

Keywords

Search

Navigation