Abstract
Objective
Clear communication of health care recommendations to patients and the public is essential.
Current work has focused on creating patient versions of guidelines without much attention
to single recommendations. In this study, we built on previously conducted research
to test a template and explore the public's perceptions of, and attitudes towards
plain language guideline recommendations.
Study Design and Setting
We conducted four focus groups with people interested in healthy aging to obtain general
attitudes, perceptions, and understanding of recommendations. We then conducted nine
user-tests of Plain Language Recommendations developed from GRADE guidelines. We performed
a directed content analysis, and finalized a template for a Plain Language Recommendation.
Results
We identified themes related to personalized information; strength of recommendations;
support with health care and appointments; amount and credibility of information;
and formatting. When recommendations were conditional, participants wanted more information
about why and what to consider. The template for a Plain Language Recommendation is
available in the GRADEpro software to facilitate automation.
Conclusion
We created a Plain Language Recommendation template to communicate specific information
from guidelines to patients and the public. Broad application of the template is warranted
and future research could measure the impact on understanding and behavior change.
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Journal of Clinical EpidemiologyAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Patient and public attitudes to and awareness of clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review with thematic and narrative syntheses.BMC Health Serv Res. 2014; 14: 321
- Consumer response to healthy eating, physical activity and weight-related recommendations: a systematic review.Obes Rev. 2012; 13: 606-617
- A conceptual framework for patient-directed knowledge tools to support patient-centred care: Results from an evidence-informed consensus meeting.Patient Educ Couns. 2019; 102: 1898-1904
- Strategies for disseminating recommendations or guidelines to patients: a systematic review.Implement Sci. 2016; 11: 82
- Dissemination of clinical practice guidelines: a content analysis of patient versions.Med Decis Making. 2016; 36: 692-702
- Choosing wisely: assessment of current US top five list recommendations' trustworthiness using a pragmatic approach.BMJ Open. 2016; 6e012366
- Clinical practice guidelines and patient decision aids: an inevitable relationship.J Clin Epidemiol. 2012; 65: 584-589
- Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.BMJ. 2004; 328: 1490
- Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations.Acad Med. 2014; 89: 1245-1251
- Improving the user experience of patient versions of clinical guidelines: user testing of a Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network (SIGN) patient version.BMC Health Serv Res. 2016; 16: 37
Group G-I-NPW. G-I-N PublicToolkit: Patient and Public Involvement in Guidelines 2015. Available from: https://g-i-n.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/GIN-TOOLKIT-COMBINED-FINAL-2015.pdf, Accessed: 2021 October 06.
- Oxman AD. User testing and stakeholder feedback contributed to the development of understandable and useful Summary of Findings tables for Cochrane reviews.J Clin Epidemiol. 2010; 63: 607-619
- Three approaches to qualitative content analysis.Qual Health Res. 2005; 15: 1277-1288
- The reporting checklist for public versions of guidelines: RIGHT-PVG.Implement Sci. 2021; 16: 10
- Patients, health information, and guidelines: a focus-group study.Scand J Prim Health Care. 2015; 33: 212-219
- Narrative interventions for health screening behaviours: a systematic review.J Health Psychol. 2017; 22: 375-393
- Might" or "suggest"? no wording approach was clearly superior in conveying the strength of recommendation.J Clin Epidemiol. 2012; 65: 268-275
Lomotan EA, Michel G, Lin Z, Shiffman RN. How "should" we write guideline recommendations? Interpretation of deontic terminology in clinical practice guidelines: survey of the health services community. Qual Saf Health Care. 2010;19(6):509-13.
- A guide for health professionals to interpret and use recommendations in guidelines developed with the GRADE approach.J Clin Epidemiol. 2016; 72: 45-55
- A summary to communicate evidence from systematic reviews to the public improved understanding and accessibility of information: a randomized controlled trial.J Clin Epidemiol. 2015; 68: 182-190
- What the evidence shows about patient activation: better health outcomes and care experiences; fewer data on costs.Health Aff (Millwood). 2013; 32: 207-214
- Health literacy and patient empowerment in health communication: the importance of separating conjoined twins.Patient Educ Couns. 2013; 90: 4-11
- Don't throw away your printed books: a meta-analysis on the effects of reading media on reading comprehension.Rev Educ Res. 2018; 25: 23-38
Article info
Publication history
Published online: September 14, 2021
Accepted:
September 9,
2021
Footnotes
Funding: This work was supported by the Labarge Optimal Aging Initiative. No restrictions were placed on publication of the work.
Conflicts of interest: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Identification
Copyright
© 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
