Looking for patients in guidelines
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 22

Looking for patients in guidelines PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 63 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Looking for patients in guidelines. Development of a search filter for identifying articles addressing patient issues Lian Hielkema (Dutch College of General Practioners), Monique Wessels (Dutch Association of Medical Specialists) International Clinical Librarian Conference 2011

Download Presentation

Looking for patients in guidelines

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Looking for patients in guidelines

Looking for patients in guidelines

Development of a search filter for identifying articles addressing patient issues

Lian Hielkema (Dutch College of General Practioners),

Monique Wessels (Dutch Association of Medical Specialists)

International Clinical Librarian Conference 2011

Birmingham, 13-14 June 2011


Looking for patients in guidelines

  • Introduction

  • Methods

  • Results

  • Conclusion


Looking for patients in guidelines

NHG –

Dutch College of

General Practitioners

Orde –

Dutch Association of

Medical Specialists


Benefits of public involvement nhs

Benefits of public involvement (NHS)

  • better outcomes of treatment and care

  • a more satisfying experience for patients of using health services

  • sharing responsibilities for healthcare with the public

  • more appropriate use of health services


Viewpoint of our two organisations

Viewpoint of our two organisations

To give patient participation a regular place in guidelines, in order to achieve a more demand-based care

by incorporating aspects of patients' perception and experience and their information needs


Methods

Methods

  • Definition and scope

  • Construction of concept-filters

  • Validation database

  • Adaptation of concept-filters


Definition and scope sign

Definition and scope (SIGN)

  • experiences (condition, diagnosis, treatments, follow-up care and QoL)

  • (information) needs and preferences

  • participation in decision-making

  • overall satisfaction with care received


Construction of concept filters for medline via ovid and via pubmed

Construction of concept-filters (for Medline via OVID and via PubMed)

Terms derived from:

- filter patient issues SIGN

- Greenhalgh, T. User involvement in health care (Wiley, 2010)

- analysis of known articles


Validation database

Validation database

  • guidelines SIGN

  • Longtin Y et al. Patient participation: current knowledge and applicability to patient safety. Mayo Clin Proc. 2010 85(1):53-62

  • guideline diabetes self-management education

    Result: 176 references


Adaptation of concept filters

Adaptation of concept-filters

  • Computerized analysis of MESH-terms of articles in validation database with open source MESH-analysing apps

  • Manual analysis of missed articles:

    • 23 (concept OVID-new filter),

    • 6 (concept PubMed-new filter),

    • 1 (OVID-SIGN filter)


Part of one of the filters pubmed new

Part of one of the filters (PubMed-new)

  • (Patient Participation[Mesh] OR consumer participation[Mesh] OR Professional-Patient Relations[Mesh] OR Patient-Centered Care[Mesh] OR Patient Preference[Mesh] OR Patient Satisfaction[Majr] OR Patient Education as Topic[Mesh] OR Attitude to Health[Mesh] OR Patient Acceptance of Health Care[Mesh] OR Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice[Mesh] OR Focus Groups[Mesh] OR Quality of Life[Majr] OR Self Care[mh:noexp] OR Self Concept[Mesh] OR Self-examination[Mesh] OR Cooperative Behavior[Mesh] OR Adaptation, Psychological[Mesh] OR Decision Support Techniques[Mesh] OR Self-Help Groups[Mesh] OR Community Networks[Mesh] OR Emotions[Mesh] OR Consumer Satisfaction[Mesh] OR Needs Assessment[Mesh] OR Personal Autonomy[Mesh] OR Patient Advocacy[Mesh] OR Life Change Events[Mesh]) OR (patient perspective*[tiab] OR patient's perspective*[tiab] OR patient desire*[tiab] OR patient's desire*[tiab] OR "patient's desires"[tiab] OR patient view*[tiab] OR patient's view*[tiab] OR patient expression*[tiab] OR patient's expression*[tiab] OR patient attitude*[tiab] OR patient's attitude*[tiab] OR patient involvement*[tiab] OR patient's involvement*[tiab] OR patient decision*[tiab] OR patient's decision*[tiab] OR patient activation[tiab] OR patient's activation[tiab] OR patients activation[tiab] OR patient empowerment[tiab] OR patient participation[tiab] OR patient's participation[tiab] OR patients participation[tiab] OR patient collaboration[tiab] OR patient's collaboration[tiab] OR patients collaboration[tiab] OR expert patient*[tiab] OR consumer participation[tiab] OR consumer perspective[tiab] OR consumers perspective[tiab] ……..


Results

Results

  • Validation of concept-filters

  • Tables

  • Comparison


Validation of concept filters

Validation of concept-filters

  • testing in practice

  • 3 subjects primary care (PubMed-filter)

  • 3 subjects secondary care (OVID-filter)

  • sensitivity, specificity, precision, accuracy


General crosstable

General crosstable

precision a/(a+b)

sensitivity a/(a+c)

specificity d/(b+d)

accuracy (a+d)/(a+b+c+d)


Pubmed new dyspepsia

Pubmed-new:dyspepsia

precision 74.0% (53-88)

sensitivity 83.3% (62-95)

specificity 98.0% (96-99)

accuracy 92.0%


Pubmed new bph chlamydia dyspepsia

PubMed-new:BPH, chlamydia, dyspepsia

precision 79.3% (69-87)

sensitivity 90.1% (81-95)

specificity 98.8% (98-99)

accuracy 98.3%


Ovid sign icd cataract spina bifida

OVID-SIGN:ICD, cataract, spina bifida

precision 21.2% (16-26)

sensitivity 98.4% (91-99)

specificity 69.1% (65-72)

accuracy 71.4%


Ovid new icd cataract spina bifida

OVID-new:ICD, cataract, spina bifida

precision 77.0% (65-86)

sensitivity 90.5% (80-96)

specificity 98.0% (96-98)

accuracy 97.0%


Comparison

Comparison


Conclusions

Conclusions

  • a never-ending story?

  • you can’t have it all

  • work in progress


Contact information

Contact information

  • [email protected]

  • [email protected]


  • Login