Patients and Clinical Practice Guidelines Development

Author: Rodger J. Winn MD
View More View Less
The standard definition of clinical practice guidelines explicitly states their aim as “to assist practitioner and patient decisions about appropriate health care for specific clinical circumstances”.1 Over the past several years, the goal of allowing patients direct involvement in managing their health care has been pushed to the forefront, with the emphasis on shared decision-making2 and patient-centered care.3 The old paternalistic model of unassailable physician-directed recommendations is no longer a tenable approach.4 Patients are expected to understand the reasons for and consequences of the procedures they undergo and the care they receive to be able to decide between alternatives when available. Therefore, clinical practice guidelines, especially versions specifically designed for patient understanding, serve a valuable function in providing the information required for this informed decision-making.5The implications of using guidelines recommendations as a vehicle for shared decision-making between caregiver and patient are both subtle and profound. If the guideline recommendations reflect only the judgments of a set of expert professionals, do they reflect the sum of the factors that should be considered in advancing those recommendations? Although the goal of any experts developing guidelines is to use the best available evidence in deriving recommendations, physicians recognize that the results of even high-powered clinical trials must be subjected to expert evaluation to ensure proper interpretation and that the results are congruent with other values and practical considerations.6 In the Ottawa Practice Guidelines Development Cycle, evidence-based recommendations derived by a panel of experts are sent to a broad range of practitioners for...

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

Rodger J. Winn is the Editor-in-Chief of JNCCN. His past positions include Associate Professor of Clinical Medicine at the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center. Dr. Winn received his medical degree from Jefferson Medical College of Philadelphia. His postgraduate training includes an internship and residency at Jefferson Medical College, and he also completed a medical oncology fellowship at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York. He is board certified in internal medicine and holds subspecialty certification in oncology.

  • 1

    Field MJ, Lohr KN (eds): Clinical Practice Guidelines: Direction for a New Program, Institute of Medicine, Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines, Washington, DC. National Academy Press, 1990.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Kravitz RL, Melnikow J. Engaging patients in medical decision-making. Br Med J 2001;323:584585.

  • 3

    Berry LL, Seiders K, Wilder SS. Innovations in access to care: A patient-centered approach. Ann Int Med 2003;139:568574.

  • 4

    Balint J, Shelton W. Regaining the initiative: Forging a new model of the patient-physician relationship. JAMA 1996;275:887891.

  • 5

    Winn RJ, McClure J. The NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: A primer for users. JNCCN 20003;1:513.

  • 6

    Browman G. Development and aftercare of clinical guidelines: The balance between rigor and pragmatism. JAMA 2001;286:15091511.

  • 7

    Browman GP, Newman TE. Progress of clinical oncology guidelines development using the Practice Guidelines Development cycle: The role of practitioner feedback. J Clin Oncol 19998;16:12261231.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Halpern J. Can the development of practice guidelines safeguard patient values? J Law Med Ethics 1995;23:7581.

  • 9

    Emanuel EJ, Emanuel LL. Four models of the physician-patient relationship. JAMA 1992;267:22212226.

  • 10

    Gadow S. An ethical case for patient self-determination. Semin Oncol Nurs 1989;5:99101.

  • 11

    Lohr KN. Guidelines for clinical practice: What are they and why they count. J Law Med Ethics 1995;23:4956.

  • 12

    Slevin Ml, Stubbs L, Plant HJ. Attitudes to chemotherapy: comparing views of patients with cancer with those of doctors, nurses, and the general public. Br Med J 1990;300:14581460.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Woolf SH, Lawrence RS. Preserving scientific debate and paitent choice: Lessons form the consensus panel on mammographic screening. JAMA 1997;278:21052108.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Hopwood P. Breast cancer risk perception: What do we know and understand? Breast Cancer Res 2000;2:387391.

  • 15

    NCCN Breast Cancer Risk Reduction, v1.004. Available at

  • 16

    Chlebowski RT, Col N, Winer EP. American Society of Clinical Oncology Technology Assessment of pharmacologic interventions for breast cancer risk reduction including tamoxifen, raloxifene, and aromatase inhibition. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:33283343.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17

    NCCN Hodgkin's Disease Guideline v1.004. Available at

  • 18

    American Society of clinical Oncology. Outcomes of cancer treatment fro technology assessment and cancer treatment guidelines. J Clin Oncol 1996;14:671679.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    Eddy DE. Anatomy of a decision. JAMA 1990;263:441443.

  • 20

    Evans K, Newman T, Graham I. Lung cancer practice guidelines: lessons learned and issues addressed by the Ontario Lung cancer Disease Site group. J Clin Oncol 1997;15:30493059.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21

    Silvestri G, Pritchard R, Welch HG. Preferences for chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small lung cancer: descriptive study based on scripted interviews. Br Med J 1998;317:771775.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22

    Souquet PJ, Chauvin F, Boissel JP. Polychemotherapy in advanced non-small-ling cancer: A meta-analysis. Lancet 1993;342;1921.

  • 23

    NCCN Non-Small-Cell Ling Cancer Guideline, v1.2004. Available at

  • 24

    Pfisters DG, Johnson DH, Azzoli CG. Americian Society of Clinical Oncology treatment of unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer: Update 2003. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:330353.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25

    Anderson BO. What outcomes matter to patients: A surgeon's perspective. Med Care 2002;40(Suppl) III-28III-30.

  • 26

    Montgomery AA, Fahey T. How do patients' treatment preferences compare with those of clinicians. Qual Health Care 2001;10(Suppl I):i39i43.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27

    Pater JL, Browman GP, Brouwers MC. Funding new cancer drugs in Ontario: closing the loop in the practice guidelines development cycle. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:33923396.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28

    Ganz PA. What outcomes matter to patients: A physician-researcher point of view. Med Care 2002;40:III-11III-19.

  • 29

    Van Wersch A, Eccles M. Involvement of consumers in the development of evidence based clinical guidelines: Practical experience from the North of England evidence based guideline programme. Qual Health Care 2001;10:1016

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 44 11 3
PDF Downloads 32 13 1
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0