[EbM and patient perspective--a 5-step approach]. / Evidenzbasis und Patientenbedürfnis--ein Annäherungsversuch in fünf Schritten: Entwicklung einer evidenzbasierten und patientenorientierten Patientenleitlinie Asthma.

OBJECTIVES: Shared decision making describes a way of involving patients in the planning and management of their individual healing process. Doing this effectively seems to be quite a challenge for both physicians and patients. The mutual transfer of information appears to be one of the main steps of this process. Clinical patient information or patient guidelines can help to explain complex medical processes in a non-specialist way and thus improve communication and self-management. In order to develop an "evidence-based asthma patient guideline" we tried to focus on both evidence-based recommendations and patients' perspectives. Patients were asked about their individual needs and knowledge and took part in the subsequent review. METHODS: In order to explore patients' perspectives and needs we implemented two additional steps to our existing concept of guideline development: (1) a questionnaire for asthma patients with 10 items dealing with patients' knowledge about asthma and a personal grading of 16 "asthma-related questions", and (2) patients joining the actual guideline review panel. RESULTS: By evaluating the results of the questionnaire we discovered a gap between what patients consider to be interesting and/or important and what is necessary from the point of view of medicine and health policy. Although the patients showed a great interest in an autonomous approach to life with asthma [important items: "what can I do by myself" (68%); "how can I prevent an asthma attack" (86%); "how can I live a better life with asthma" (77%)], they were less interested in topics that would give them more autonomy ["structured educational programs" (41%); "how to use inhaling devices" (64%) or "peak flow measurement" (36%)]. Patients participating in the review panel emphasized the need for more or better information about pollution (i.e. ozone), complementary/alternative methods and the administration of cortisone during the asthma attack--topics that were not mentioned in the physicians' guideline. CONCLUSIONS: To acquire an "implementable" evidence-based patient guideline it is not sufficient to "translate" existing asthma guidelines into lay language. We should focus on the needs of individual asthma patients and the problems they encounter every day. Therefore patients should be asked what they want to know and what they do not know, and they should review the results and include their own views into the guideline. We applied this concept to the above mentioned evidence-based patient guideline and received a thematic ranking focused on patients' daily needs as well as a to-do list of topics that require increased attention (like peak flow measurement and structured education programs). The patients' perspectives changed our perspective on our patient guideline more than we expected.

[Shared decision making. The perspective of practicing physicians]. / "Shared Decision Making"Gemeinsame Entscheidungsfindung aus der ärztlichen Perspektive.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: More and more, patients want to participate in medical decision making. They expect a patient-centered communication as well as adequate information. However, little is known about the physicians' perspective and skills regarding shared decision making (SDM). This paper presents data about the physicians' perspective and allows focused comparison with the patients' views. METHODS: Standardized survey of 502 physicians from ambulatory care practices and of 1,512 German-speaking people, aged 18-79 years. Patient data were collected from a population-based random sample of an access panel. The following topics were included in this survey: medical decision making in daily practice, communication skills and behavior of physicians from the perspectives of physicians and patients. RESULTS: A majority of physicians approve the concept of SDM. Especially younger physicians favor the concept of SDM. Overall, physicians underestimate their patients' preference to participate in medical decision making. Physicians also tend to overestimate their information and communication skills. CONCLUSION: Not only in the general public, but also among physicians, a model of SDM is widely accepted. The communication skills necessary for this process appear to exist. However, they need to be promoted and extended. Learning to communicate adequately should receive a greater focus in medical education and postgraduate training.

[www.evidence.de--assessment and utilization of clinical guidelines by primary care physicians and internists]. / www.evidence.de--Netzbasierte Leitlinien im Praxistest. Beurteilung und Nutzung von evidenzbasierten und netzgestützten Leitlinien durch Allgemeinärzte und hausärztlich tätige Internisten.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Compared to the generation of new scientific results, implementation and utilization of evidence based knowledge is lacking far behind. Strengths and weaknesses of evidence- and HTML-based guidelines were evaluated in an academic network of primary care physicians to better understand the expectations and information needs of GPs. METHODS: Standardized survey of 72 primary care physicians (21% female, 79% male) regarding three network based issues: "frequency of guideline use", "reasons to use/not to use guidelines", "evaluation and overall judgement of guidelines". RESULTS: 62.9% of participating had used net based guidelines at least once, the percentage of more frequent users (> 2 times in two months) was 40.3%. Curiosity and non-specific interest as well as a concrete medical question were the main reasons for utilization of guidelines. The overall judgement of the guidelines was positive, however, only a minority of participating physicians viewed them as a concrete help in daily practice. CONCLUSION: Transformation of new scientific medical knowledge into daily primary care practice is only insufficiently developed. Netbased instruments of continuing medical education may serve as catalysts and should be further developed as well as evaluated.