Abstract:Background: The Good Practice Guidelines for health information, Good Health Information Austria and Guideline Evidence-based Health Information are established resources for developing evidence-based health information in the German-speaking regions. The aim of this project was to capture challenges in applying these standards in practice, identify gaps and development needs and gain insights for their further development. Methods: In December 2020, members of the working group for patient information and involvement of the Network for Evidence-based Medicine were invited to share their experiences and needs in applying German standards for evidence-based health information through an online survey focussing on open questions (part 1: needs assessment). The feedback was analysed using qualitative content analysis and presented in a workshop at the EbM Congress 2021 with the goal of specifying the feedback from the needs assessment and discussing ideas for the further development of the standards (part 2: specification). In the final step, a second survey was conducted in February 2023 to prioritize the identified topics by the working group members (part 3: prioritization). The results were analysed descriptively. Results: Among the 41 participants, only 23% considered the standards to be sufficient, and only 55% found their application in the development of information to be easy or rather easy. The needs assessment and workshop (n=46) helped to identify various areas of action. With regard to the application of the standards, the following challenges were identified: lack of user orientation, content gaps, methods and risk communication. Gaps in the standards were identified regarding formats, content, and the connection to healthcare provision. For the advancement of the standards ideas for additional content, stakeholder involvement, and improvement of the usability of the standards were identified. In the prioritization survey, the topic areas, "presenting benefits and harms" and "content beyond treatments (in particular, diagnostics and prognosis)" were considered to be the most important (n=36). Discussion: Among members of the working group for patient information and involvement of the German Network for Evidence-based Medicine, a high demand has been identified for the further development of standards for creating evidence-based health information. In addition to content development, the integration of existing documents and tools should also be considered, including products issued by other institutions. The success of advancing the standards also depends on improving their applicability - for example through an attractive online platform. The results are limited by the sample which only included members of the EbM Network's patient information and participation working group and a limited response rate. Conclusions: The needs assessment showed that the currently established standards and recommendations for the development of evidence-based health information in the German-speaking regions represent important cornerstones but need to be expanded to answer more practice-oriented questions. The challenges and proposed solutions stated by the participants can help further develop the standards. The prioritization can be used to set priorities for the development of the standards, guide the order of possible work packages and allocate resources.

Barriers and facilitators in developing patient versions of clinical practice guidelines - qualitative interviews on experiences of international guideline producers

Use, applicability, and dissemination of patient versions of clinical practice guidelines in oncology in Germany: a qualitative interview study with healthcare providers

Recommendations to improve use and dissemination of patient versions of oncological clinical practice guidelines in Germany: results of a multi-stakeholder workshop

The perceptions and experience of developing patient (version of) guidelines: a descriptive qualitative study with Chinese guideline developers

Awareness, use and perception of patient versions of clinical practice guidelines – a national cross-sectional survey among patients with a cancer diagnosis and healthcare providers

Barriers and facilitators of adherence to clinical practice guidelines in Germany—A systematic review

What do patients and the public know about clinical practice guidelines and what do they want from them? A qualitative study

Development of patient versions of in Chinese mainland: A systematic survey of current practices and methods

Conventional and living guideline for schizophrenia: barriers and facilitating factors in guideline implementation

Guidelines or mindlines? - implementing a new CKD guideline in German primary care

Mapping the Awareness and Knowledge about Patient and Public Versions of Guidelines among Stakeholders in China: a Cross-Sectional Survey

The impact of a digital guideline version on schizophrenia guideline knowledge: results from a multicenter cluster-randomized controlled trial

How do guideline developers identify, incorporate and report patient preferences? An international cross-sectional survey

Barriers to making recommendations about medical tests: a qualitative study of European guideline developers

[Advancing standards for the development of evidence-based health information for consumers: Needs and priorities among members of the Network for Evidence-based Medicine]

Implementation of guidelines in clinical practice; barriers and strategies

Evaluating the Acceptability, Feasibility, and Outcomes of Two Methods Involving Patients With Disability in Developing Clinical Guidelines: Crossover Pilot Study

Implementing guidelines and training initiatives to improve cross-cultural communication in primary care consultations: a qualitative participatory European study

[Guidelines Within And For Public Health Services: Results Of An Online Survey On Current Practical Needs]

Guideline for schizophrenia: implementation status and attitude toward an upcoming living guideline

An International Needs Assessment Survey of Guideline Developers Demonstrates Variability in Resources and Challenges to Collaboration between Organizations