What are the Relevant Outcomes of the Periodic Health Examination? A Comparison of Citizens’ and Experts’ Ratings

References

• Roman BR, Feingold J. Patient-centered guideline development: best practices can improve the quality and impact of guidelines. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014;151(4):530–532. doi:10.1177/0194599814544878
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Dulmen SA, Lukersmith S, Muxlow J, Santa Mina E, Nijhuis-van der Sanden MW, van der Wees PJ. Supporting a person-centred approach in clinical guidelines. A position paper of the Allied Health Community - Guidelines International Network (G-I-N). Health Expect. 2015;18(5):1543–1558. doi:10.1111/hex.12144
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Standards for Developing Trustworthy Clinical Practice Guidelines. Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Guideline International Network. G-I-N PUBLIC toolkit: patient and public involvement in guidelines. Published 2015. Available from: http://www.g-i-n.net/working-groups/gin-public/toolkit. Accessed July 18, 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Brouwers MC, Kerkvliet K, Spithoff K. The AGREE reporting checklist: a tool to improve reporting of clinical practice guidelines. BMJ. 2016;352:i1152. doi:10.1136/bmj.i1152
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Selva A, Sanabria AJ, Pequeño S, et al. Incorporating patients’ views in guideline development: a systematic review of guidance documents. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;88:102–112. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.05.018
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Armstrong MJ, Rueda JD, Gronseth GS, Mullins CD. Framework for enhancing clinical practice guidelines through continuous patient engagement. Health Expect. 2017;20(1):3–10. doi:10.1111/hex.12467
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schünemann H, Brożek J, Guyatt G, Oxman A Introduction to GRADE Handbook. Handbook for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations using the GRADE approach. GRADE Working Group; Published October, 2013. Available from: http://gdt.guidelinedevelopment.org/app/handbook/handbook.html. Accessed March 21, 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Gutman T, Lopez-Vargas P, Manera KE, et al. Identifying and integrating patient and caregiver perspectives in clinical practice guidelines for percutaneous renal biopsy. Nephrology. 2019;24(4):395–404. doi:10.1111/nep.13406
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demyttenaere K, Donneau AF, Albert A, Ansseau M, Constant E, van Heeringen K. What is important in being cured from depression? Discordance between physicians and patients (1). J Affect Disord. 2015;174:390–396. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2014.12.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janssen IM, Scheibler F, Gerhardus A. Importance of hemodialysis-related outcomes: comparison of ratings by a self-help group, clinicians, and health technology assessment authors with those by a large reference group of patients. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2016;10:2491–2500. doi:10.2147/PPA.S122319
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alonso-Coello P, Montori VM, Díaz MG, et al. Values and preferences for oral antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation: physician and patient perspectives. Health Expect. 2015;18(6):2318–2327. doi:10.1111/hex.12201
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gesundheit.gv.at. Die Vorsorgeuntersuchung auf einen Blick. Published 2019. Available from: https://www.gesundheit.gv.at/leben/gesundheitsvorsorge/vorsorgeuntersuchung/was-wird-gemacht. Accessed July 18, 2019.
   Google Scholar
• World Medical Association. World medical association declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA. 2013;310(20):2191–2194. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.281053
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sommer I, Titscher V, Gartlehner G. Participants’ expectations and experiences with periodic health examinations in Austria - a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):823. doi:10.1186/s12913-018-3640-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helmer-Hirschberg O. Analysis of the Future: The Delphi Method. California, USA: RAND Corporation; 1967.
   Google Scholar
• Panda M, Paranjpe S, Gore A Measuring intergroup agreement and disagreement. Cytel Statistical Software & Services Private Limited; Published 2018. Available from: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1806/1806.05821.pdf. Accessed March 29, 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Altman DG. Practical Statistics for Medical Research. London: Chapman and Hall; 1991.
   Google Scholar
• R Development Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing; Published 2018. Available from: http://www.R-project.org. Accessed March 29, 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Kirkegaard P, Mortensen GL, Mortensen SL, Larsen MB, Gabel P, Andersen B. Making decisions about colorectal cancer screening. A qualitative study among citizens with lower educational attainment. Eur J Public Health. 2016;26(1):176–181. doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckv207
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grant S, Hazlewood GS, Peay HL, et al. Practical considerations for using online methods to engage patients in guideline development. Patient. 2018;11(2):155–166. doi:10.1007/s40271-017-0280-6
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Khodyakov D, Grant S, Denger B, et al. Practical considerations in using online modified-Delphi approaches to engage patients and other stakeholders in clinical practice guideline development. Patient. 2020;13(1):11–21. doi:10.1007/s40271-019-00389-4
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• van de Bovenkamp HM, Zuiderent-Jerak T. An empirical study of patient participation in guideline development: exploring the potential for articulating patient knowledge in evidence-based epistemic settings. Health Expect. 2015;18(5):942–955. doi:10.1111/hex.12067
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duffett L. Patient engagement: what partnering with patient in research is all about. Thromb Res. 2017;150:113–120. doi:10.1016/j.thromres.2016.10.029
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janssen IM, Gerhardus A, Schroer-Gunther MA, Scheibler F. A descriptive review on methods to prioritize outcomes in a health care context. Health Expect. 2015;18(6):1873–1893. doi:10.1111/hex.12256
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krippendorff K. Agreement and information in the reliability of coding. Commun Methods Meas. 2011;5(2):93–112. doi:10.1080/19312458.2011.568376
   Google Scholar
• Gwet K. Handbook of Inter-Rater Reliability. Maryland, USA: Advanced Analytics Press; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Akins RB, Tolson H, Cole BR. Stability of response characteristics of a Delphi panel: application of bootstrap data expansion. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005;5:37. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-5-37
   PubMedGoogle Scholar