Search

Many patients of all ages have multiple conditions, yet clinicians often lack explicit guidance on how to approach clinical decision-making for such people. Most recommendations from clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) focus on the management of single diseases, and may be harmful or impractical for patients with multimorbidity. A major barrier to the development of guidance for people with multimorbidity stems from the fact that the evidence underlying CPGs derives from studies predominantly focused on the management of a single disease. In this paper, the investigators from the Improving Guidelines for Multimorbid Patients Study Group present consensus-based recommendations for guideline developers to make guidelines more useful for the care of people with multimorbidity. In an iterative process informed by review of key literature and experience, we drafted a list of issues and possible approaches for addressing important coexisting conditions in each step of the guideline development process, with a focus on considering relevant interactions between the conditions, their treatments and their outcomes. The recommended approaches address consideration of coexisting conditions at all major steps in CPG development, from nominating and scoping the topic, commissioning the work group, refining key questions, ranking importance of outcomes, conducting systematic reviews, assessing quality of evidence and applicability, summarizing benefits and harms, to formulating recommendations and grading their strength. The list of issues and recommendations was reviewed and refined iteratively by stakeholders. This framework acknowledges the challenges faced by CPG developers who must make complex judgments in the absence of high-quality or direct evidence. These recommendations require validation through implementation, evaluation and refinement.

Purpose: Breast cancer follow-up (surveillance and aftercare) varies from one-size-fits-all to more personalised approaches. A systematic review was performed to get insight in existing evidence on (cost-)effectiveness of personalised follow-up. Methods: PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane were searched between 01–01-2010 and 10–10-2022 (review registered in PROSPERO:CRD42022375770). The inclusion population comprised nonmetastatic breast cancer patients ≥ 18 years, after completing curative treatment. All intervention-control studies studying personalised surveillance and/or aftercare designed for use during the entire follow-up period were included. All review processes including risk of bias assessment were performed by two reviewers. Characteristics of included studies were described. Results: Overall, 3708 publications were identified, 64 full-text publications were read and 16 were included for data extraction. One study evaluated personalised surveillance. Various personalised aftercare interventions and outcomes were studied. Most common elements included in personalised aftercare plans were treatment summaries (75%), follow-up guidelines (56%), lists of available supportive care resources (38%) and PROs (25%). Control conditions mostly comprised usual care. Four out of seven (57%) studies reported improvements in quality of life following personalisation. Six studies (38%) found no personalisation effect, for multiple outcomes assessed (e.g. distress, satisfaction). One (6.3%) study was judged as low, four (25%) as high risk of bias and 11 (68.8%) as with concerns. Conclusion: The included studies varied in interventions, measurement instruments and outcomes, making it impossible to draw conclusions on the effectiveness of personalised follow-up. There is a need for a definition of both personalised surveillance and aftercare, whereafter outcomes can be measured according to uniform standards. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Diabetes patients with comorbidities need regular and comprehensive care for their disease management. Hence, it is essential to assess the primary care preparedness for managing diabetes patients and the perspectives of the diabetes patients on the care received at the primary care facilities. Methods All 21 Urban Primary Health Centres (UPHCs) in Bhubaneswar city of Odisha, India, were assessed using the modified Primary Care Evaluation Tool and WHO Package of Essential Non-communicable disease interventions questionnaire. Additionally, 21 diabetes patients with comorbidities were interviewed in-depth to explore their perception of the care received at the primary care facilities. Results All the UPHCs had provisions to meet the basic requirements for the management of diabetes and common comorbidities like hypertension. There were few provisions for chronic kidney illness, cardiovascular disease, mental health, and cancer. Diabetes patients felt that frequent change in primary care physicians at the primary care facilities affected their continuity of care. Easy accessibility, availability of free medicines, and provisions of basic laboratory tests at the facilities were felt to be necessary by the diabetes patients. Conclusion Our study highlights the existing gaps in India's healthcare system preparedness and the needs of diabetes patients with comorbidity. The government of India's Health and Wellness (HWC) scheme aims to deliver comprehensive healthcare to the population and provide holistic care at the primary care level for NCD patients. It is imperative that there is an early implementation of the various components of the HWC scheme to provide optimal care to diabetes patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundPatient participation is essential in developing high-quality guidelines but faces practical challenges. Evidence on timing, methods, evaluations, and outcomes of methodologies for patient participation in guideline development is lacking. ObjectiveTo assess the feasibility of a wiki as a participatory tool for patients in the development of a guideline on infertility determined by (1) use of the wiki (number of page views and visitors), (2) benefits of the wiki (ie, number, content, and eligibility of the recommendations to be integrated into the guideline), and (3) patients’ facilitators of and barriers to adoption, and the potential challenges to be overcome in improving this wiki. MethodsTo obtain initial content for the wiki, we conducted in-depth interviews (n = 12) with infertile patients. Transcripts from the interviews were translated into 90 draft recommendations. These were presented on a wiki. Over 7 months, infertile patients were invited through advertisements or mailings to formulate new or modify existing recommendations. After modifying the recommendations, we asked patients to select their top 5 or top 3 recommendations for each of 5 sections on fertility care. Finally, the guideline development group assessed the eligibility of the final set of recommendations within the scope of the guideline. We used a multimethod evaluation strategy to assess the feasibility of the wiki as a participatory tool for patients in guideline development. ResultsThe wiki attracted 298 unique visitors, yielding 289 recommendations. We assessed the 21 recommendations ranked as the top 5 or top 3 for their eligibility for being integrated into the clinical practice guideline. The evaluation identified some challenges needed to be met to improve the wiki tool, concerning its ease of use, website content and layout, and characteristics of the wiki tool. ConclusionsThe wiki is a promising and feasible participatory tool for patients in guideline development. A modified version of this tool including new modalities (eg, automatically limiting the number and length of recommendations, using a fixed format for recommendations, including a motivation page, and adding a continuous prioritization system) should be developed and evaluated in a patient-centered design.

Rationale, aims and objectives: Supporting evidence for diagnostic test recommendations in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) should not only include diagnostic accuracy, but also downstream consequences of the test result on patient‐relevant outcomes. The aim of this study is to assess the extent to which evidence‐based CPGs about diagnostic tests cover all relevant test‐treatment pathway components. Methods: We performed a systematic document analysis and quality assessment of publicly accessible CPGs about three common diagnostic tests: C‐reactive protein, colonoscopy and fractional exhaled nitric oxide. Evaluation of the impact of the full test‐treatment pathway (diagnostic accuracy, burden of the test, natural course of target condition, treatment effectiveness, and link between test result and administration of treatment) on patient relevant outcomes was considered best practice for developing medical test recommendations. Results: We retrieved 15 recommendations in 15 CPGs. The methodological quality of the CPGs varied from poor to excellent. Ten recommendations considered diagnostic accuracy. Four of these were funded on a systematic review and rating of the certainty in the evidence. None of the CPGs evaluated all steps of the test‐treatment pathway. Burden of the test was considered in three CPGs, but without systematically reviewing the evidence. Natural course was considered in two CPGs, without a systematic review of the evidence. In three recommendations, treatment effectiveness was considered, supported with a systematic review and rating of the certainty in the evidence in one CPG. The link between test result and treatment administration was not considered in any CPG. Conclusions: The included CPGs hardly seem to consider evidence about test consequences on patient‐relevant outcomes. This might be explained by reporting issues and challenging methodology. Future research is needed to investigate how to facilitate guideline developers in explicit reliable consideration of all steps of a test‐treatment pathway when developing diagnostic test recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]