looking for patients in guidelines
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Looking for patients in guidelines

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 22

Looking for patients in guidelines - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 138 Views
  • Uploaded on

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

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Looking for patients in guidelines' - ajay


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

slide2

Introduction

  • Methods
  • Results
  • Conclusion
slide4

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%

conclusions
Conclusions
  • a never-ending story?
  • you can’t have it all
  • work in progress
ad