Mapping the Awareness and Knowledge about Patient and Public Versions of Guidelines among Stakeholders in China: a Cross-Sectional Survey
Hui Liu,Yuanyuan Yao,Xufei Luo,Nan Yang,Zijun Wang,Xiping Shen,Zhewei Li,Wei Zhao,Dongrui Peng,Huayu Zhang,Hongfeng He,Wei Wang,Xingrong Liu,Yaolong Chen,Janne Estill
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111429
IF: 7.407
2024-01-01
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Abstract:Objectives: Patient and public versions of guidelines (PVGs) have gradually gained wide recognition and attention from the public and the society due to their scientific, professional, and authoritative characteristics. This study aims to survey the awareness and knowledge of PVGs among stakeholders in China. Study Design and Setting: This was a cross-sectional survey among stakeholders (guideline developers, clinicians, journal editors, patients, and the public) in China. We self-designed the questionnaire and distributed it through the Questionnaire Star platform. The primary outcomes were awareness of PVGs and opinions about the development methodology, writing, dissemination, and implementation of PVGs. The Kruskal-Wallis H test and post hoc multiple comparison tests were used to compare the levels of awareness of PVGs between different subgroups of respondents. Results: A total of 1319 valid questionnaires were collected: 722 from guideline developers, 136 from clinicians, 83 from journal editors, 284 from patients, and 94 from members of the public. Of all respondents, 253 (19.2%) had not heard of PVGs, 349 (26.5%) had heard of PVGs but had no further knowledge, 475 (36.0%) had some knowledge of PVGs, and 242 (18.3%) were familiar with or had participated in the development of PVGs. Guideline developers, clinicians, and journal editors had higher awareness than patients and the public. Higher education and older age also correlated with higher awareness of PVGs. More than half (52.9%) of guideline developers considered that both rewriting of the source guidelines and direct development as independent documents were appropriate methods for developing PVGs. The survey respondents agreed that clinicians (97.3%), guideline methodologists (76.6%), representatives of patients and the public (74.5%), and medical editors or writers (63.4%) should participate in the development of PVGs. More than 80% of the respondents agreed that the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations should be presented; however, there was no consensus in the form of presentation. Conclusions: The level of awareness of PVGs among stakeholders in China is relatively low and differs between different stakeholder groups, but the majority of key stakeholders have a positive attitude toward PVGs. The collection of the perspectives and opinions on the development methods, writing, dissemination, and implementation provides a key reference and basis for the future optimization and improvement of PVGs development. (c) 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights are reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.