Limits...
Trustworthy guidelines - excellent; customized care tools - even better.

Elwyn G, Quinlan C, Mulley A, Agoritsas T, Vandvik PO, Guyatt G - BMC Med (2015)

Bottom Line: The ability to do online searches for health information has led to concerns that patients find the results confusing and that they often lead to expectations for treatments that have little supportive evidence.Gradually, there is recognition that the audience for high quality evidence is much wider than merely health care professionals - and that there is a case to be made for creating tools that translate existing evidence into tools to help patients and clinicians work together to decide next steps.We observe two processes occurring: first, is the recognition that decision making in healthcare requires collaboration and deliberation, and second, to achieve this, we need tools designed to customize care at the level of individuals.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, 37 Dewey Field Road, Hanover, NH, 03755, USA. glynelwyn@gmail.com.

ABSTRACT

Background: The ability to do online searches for health information has led to concerns that patients find the results confusing and that they often lead to expectations for treatments that have little supportive evidence. At the same time, the science of summarizing research evidence has advanced to the point where it is increasingly possible to quantify treatment tradeoffs and to describe the balance between harms and benefits for individual patients.

Discussion: Trustworthy clinical practice guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations to health care practitioners based on assessments of study-level averages. In an effort to customize the use of evidence and ensure that choices are consistent with their personal preferences, tools for patients have been developed. Gradually, there is recognition that the audience for high quality evidence is much wider than merely health care professionals - and that there is a case to be made for creating tools that translate existing evidence into tools to help patients and clinicians work together to decide next steps. We observe two processes occurring: first, is the recognition that decision making in healthcare requires collaboration and deliberation, and second, to achieve this, we need tools designed to customize care at the level of individuals.

No MeSH data available.


From evidence synthesis to customized care tool production
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4556022&req=5

Fig1: From evidence synthesis to customized care tool production

Mentions: As mentioned, different types of tools will be necessary to facilitate shared decision making. What ‘matters most to patients’ should guide the presentation of evidence, specifically in terms of organizing the content and conveying the probabilities of treatment effects, harms, and burden in ways that communicate risk most effectively. Short tools such as Issue Cards [12], Option Grids [13], and SHARE-IT tools [22] have been designed to facilitate collaboration and deliberation in clinical encounters [23]. They do this by being brief and available for both patient and clinician to use together, either on paper or tablets. Research efforts are now addressing usability of tools for the clinical encounter [7, 22, 24]. We argue for a future state where patients and clinicians rely on the same evidence base – and on tools that are used collaboratively – to get to consensus on treatment, where that is possible. We are working, in collaboration with many others, to systematize evidence synthesis to facilitate the production of trustworthy tools, for multiple purposes, that can be widely shared (Fig. 1).Fig. 1


Trustworthy guidelines - excellent; customized care tools - even better.

Elwyn G, Quinlan C, Mulley A, Agoritsas T, Vandvik PO, Guyatt G - BMC Med (2015)

From evidence synthesis to customized care tool production
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4556022&req=5

Fig1: From evidence synthesis to customized care tool production
Mentions: As mentioned, different types of tools will be necessary to facilitate shared decision making. What ‘matters most to patients’ should guide the presentation of evidence, specifically in terms of organizing the content and conveying the probabilities of treatment effects, harms, and burden in ways that communicate risk most effectively. Short tools such as Issue Cards [12], Option Grids [13], and SHARE-IT tools [22] have been designed to facilitate collaboration and deliberation in clinical encounters [23]. They do this by being brief and available for both patient and clinician to use together, either on paper or tablets. Research efforts are now addressing usability of tools for the clinical encounter [7, 22, 24]. We argue for a future state where patients and clinicians rely on the same evidence base – and on tools that are used collaboratively – to get to consensus on treatment, where that is possible. We are working, in collaboration with many others, to systematize evidence synthesis to facilitate the production of trustworthy tools, for multiple purposes, that can be widely shared (Fig. 1).Fig. 1

Bottom Line: The ability to do online searches for health information has led to concerns that patients find the results confusing and that they often lead to expectations for treatments that have little supportive evidence.Gradually, there is recognition that the audience for high quality evidence is much wider than merely health care professionals - and that there is a case to be made for creating tools that translate existing evidence into tools to help patients and clinicians work together to decide next steps.We observe two processes occurring: first, is the recognition that decision making in healthcare requires collaboration and deliberation, and second, to achieve this, we need tools designed to customize care at the level of individuals.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, 37 Dewey Field Road, Hanover, NH, 03755, USA. glynelwyn@gmail.com.

ABSTRACT

Background: The ability to do online searches for health information has led to concerns that patients find the results confusing and that they often lead to expectations for treatments that have little supportive evidence. At the same time, the science of summarizing research evidence has advanced to the point where it is increasingly possible to quantify treatment tradeoffs and to describe the balance between harms and benefits for individual patients.

Discussion: Trustworthy clinical practice guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations to health care practitioners based on assessments of study-level averages. In an effort to customize the use of evidence and ensure that choices are consistent with their personal preferences, tools for patients have been developed. Gradually, there is recognition that the audience for high quality evidence is much wider than merely health care professionals - and that there is a case to be made for creating tools that translate existing evidence into tools to help patients and clinicians work together to decide next steps. We observe two processes occurring: first, is the recognition that decision making in healthcare requires collaboration and deliberation, and second, to achieve this, we need tools designed to customize care at the level of individuals.

No MeSH data available.