Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Appears in Collections:Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport Journal Articles
Peer Review Status: Refereed
Title: Dissemination of clinical practice guidelines: A content analysis of patient versions
Author(s): Santesso, Nancy
Morgano, Gian Paolo
Jack, Susan A
Haynes, R Brian
Hill, Sophie
Treweek, Shaun
Schunemann, Holger
Callaghan, Margaret
Graham, Karen
Harbour, Robin
Kunnamo, Ilkka
Liira, Helena
Loudon, Kirsty
McFarlane, Emma
Ritchie, Karen
Service, Duncan
Thornton, Judith
Contact Email:
Keywords: patient decision making
risk communication
risk perception
clinical practice guidelines
qualitative methods
Issue Date: Aug-2016
Date Deposited: 28-Apr-2016
Citation: Santesso N, Morgano GP, Jack SA, Haynes RB, Hill S, Treweek S, Schunemann H, Callaghan M, Graham K, Harbour R, Kunnamo I, Liira H, Loudon K, McFarlane E, Ritchie K, Service D & Thornton J (2016) Dissemination of clinical practice guidelines: A content analysis of patient versions. Medical Decision Making, 36 (6), pp. 692-702.
Abstract: Background. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are typically written for health care professionals but are meant to assist patients with health care decisions. A number of guideline producers have started to develop patient versions of CPGs to reach this audience. Objective. To describe the content and purpose of patient versions of CPGs and compare with patient and public views of CPGs. Design. A descriptive qualitative study with a directed content analysis of a sample of patient versions of CPGs published and freely available in English from 2012 to 2014. Results. We included 34 patient versions of CPGs from 17 guideline producers. Over half of the patient versions were in dedicated patient sections of national/professional agency websites. There was essentially no information about how to manage care in the health care system. The most common purpose was to equip people with information about disease, tests or treatments, and recommendations, but few provided quantitative data about benefits and harms of treatments. Information about beliefs, values and preferences, accessibility, costs, or feasibility of the interventions was rarely addressed. Few provided personal stories or scenarios to personalize the information. Three versions described the strength of the recommendation or the level of evidence. Limitations. Our search for key institutions that produce patient versions of guidelines was comprehensive, but we only included English and freely available versions. Future work will include other languages. Conclusions. This review describes the current landscape of patient versions of CPGs and suggests that these versions may not address the needs of their targeted audience. Research is needed about how to personalize information, provide information about factors contributing to the recommendations, and provide access.
DOI Link: 10.1177/0272989X16644427
Rights: Publisher policy allows this work to be made available in this repository. Published in Medical Decision Making by SAGE. The original publication is available at:

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Main_MDM_Santesso_26jan2016_with_tables_clean_copy.pdfFulltext - Accepted Version244.08 kBAdobe PDFView/Open

This item is protected by original copyright

Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

The metadata of the records in the Repository are available under the CC0 public domain dedication: No Rights Reserved

If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.