Integrating Values and Consumer Involvement in Guidelines with the Patient at the Center: Article 8 in Integrating and Coordinating Efforts in COPD Guideline Development. An Official ATS/ERS Workshop Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Professional societies, like many other organizations around the world, have recognized the need to use rigorous processes to ensure that healthcare recommendations are informed by the best available research evidence. They are also realizing the need to involve consumers of healthcare (patients, caregivers, and the public) and integrate their values and preferences in clinical guideline development. This is the eighth of a series of 14 articles that were prepared to advise guideline developers in respiratory and other diseases. It focuses on where to find information about consumer values and preferences, at what points in the guideline development process to integrate their values and preferences, and why. METHODS: In this review, we addressed the following questions: (1) What do we mean by "consumers"? (2) Why integrate the values and preferences of consumers of healthcare (patients, caregivers, and the public) into clinical practice guidelines? (3) What are the sources of information on consumer values? (4) When and how should consumer values and preferences be integrated into chronic obstructive pulmonary disease guideline recommendations? We defined consumers as patients, caregivers, and members of the public, excluding groups that may also be identified as consumers of guidelines including health professionals, providers, and commissioners of services. We searched PubMed and other databases of methodological studies for existing systematic reviews and relevant methodological research. We did not conduct systematic reviews ourselves. Our conclusions are based on available evidence, supplemented by a rapid appraisal of a selection of qualitative studies, experience of what guideline developers are doing, and workshop discussions. RESULTS: A clear distinction needs to be made between the use of information on consumer values and preferences by guideline developers, and the direct involvement of consumers in guideline development processes. Sources of information on consumer values include the research literature and direct elicitation of values both from organizations representing consumer interests and from individuals. To complement the identification of consumer values, there are a range of methods for involving consumers at all stages of guideline development, from consultation to direct membership of guideline development groups. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence-based guidelines need to consider explicitly the values and preferences of all relevant stakeholders (including those of consumers) and to provide opportunities for patients, caregivers, and the public to engage in the processes that consider and integrate those values into the development of guideline recommendations.
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 | 0.127 | 0.152 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".