002 Public Attitudes to and Knowledge of Healthcare Guidelines, and Methods to Communicate Guideline Recommendations to Patients and the Public – A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Improving patient versions of guidelines is one way to support an increasing role for patients in health decision making. Objectives To evaluate evidence on the public’s attitudes and knowledge of clinical practice guidelines AND what strategies have been used to communicate guideline recommendations to this group. Methods We conducted a systematic review of public attitudes and knowledge of clinical practice guidelines to inform the development of dissemination strategies for this population. We searched health databases from 2000 to 01/2013, grey literature, and we contacted guideline producers. Two reviewers independently abstracted, coded, synthesised themes from the studies. Results We included 25 published studies and three reports (CCPG, NICE, SIGN). There was a huge variation in the public’s awareness of guidelines (12 studies) from 25–75%. The key themes to communicate guidelines (15 studies) to the public included, predictive factors (amount of education), personalisation, access to care, trustworthiness (evidence behind recommendations), and self-management. Discussion Although there were few studies for thematic analysis there were recurrent themes. When developing patient versions, the danger could be to focus on detailed formatting instead of fundamental issues around whether patients dismiss guidelines as not applicable to their unique situation and restricts care. The results will inform work focused on the public and patients being done in EU FP7 DECIDE project. Implications Guideline producers will need to increase the public’s awareness of clinical guidelines and developing communication strategies that are clearly personally applicable, trustworthy and useful for patients and carers managing their care.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.087 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".