Participation and consultation engagement strategies have complementary roles: A case study of patient and public involvement in clinical practice guideline development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement (PPI) is recommended when developing high-quality clinical practice guidelines, but the effects of different PPI strategies are largely unstudied. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of participation and consultation strategies on guideline question development. DESIGN: Instrumental case study design. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: This study used a clinical practice guideline in development by the American Academy of Neurology. A patient, two caregivers and a dementia advocate participated in the guideline development group alongside clinicians. The guideline protocol was posted for public consultation for 30 days. INTERVENTIONS STUDIED: Participation (patient representatives on the guideline development group) and consultation (public comment, survey) PPI strategies. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Public comment responses and guideline development group meeting transcripts were analysed descriptively. Transcript quotes were compared to the conceptual model of PPI in guideline development. The effects of participation and consultation strategies within the guideline case were compared. RESULTS: Participation strategies shaped discussions, set a patient-centred scope, highlighted personal aspects of disease, affected how professionals viewed PPI, identified issues overlooked by medical professionals, and contributed to selecting patient-relevant guideline populations and outcomes. Professionals responded to public comment more than patient representatives. Patient survey participants confirmed the priorities voiced by patient representatives on the guideline development group. Final guideline questions included populations and outcomes promoted by patient representatives despite negative feedback from professional public commenters. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Participation and consultation PPI strategies have different advantages. Congruence between strategies increases the strength of the patient voice. Guideline developers should prioritize using both strategies for successful PPI.
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 | 0.048 | 0.080 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".