TABLE 2.

Determinants of identifying, incorporating and reporting patient preferences in guidelines

Study	Barriers	Facilitators
Armstrong 38	—	—
Li 39	—	—
Bennett 40	Adding patient and caregiver stakeholders to the institutional review board protocol Involving them in large conference calls (vs. more personal meetings)	Training in research methods Combination of in‐person and virtual meetings
Goodman 41	—	—
Pinheiro 42	—	—
Zhang 43	Difficult to identify relevant studies that described preferences Information about values and preferences from panel members could be biased and was sometimes difficult to use	—
den Breejen 44	—	—
Fraenkel 45	—	—
Hämeen‐Anttila 46	Difficult to find appropriate persons from the target group who would be capable of representing the larger patient population and not just their own personal experiences and views	Training in clinical practice guidelines
Utens 47	Understanding of what constitutes a preference Difficult to identify relevant studies that described preferences The weight to give patient preferences	—
Pittens 48	—	—
Serrano‐Agu 49	Patients holding their own when facing a team of professionals Becoming easily overruled by professionals resulting in tokenism	—
Garcia‐Toyos 50	—	—
Den Breejen 51	Users found it difficult to find and use the website (questionnaire to rank guideline questions) They did not fully understand the purpose of the website (to rank recommendations based on preferences)	—
Tong 52	Difficult to achieve an adequate attendance rate as some participants were unable to attend at the last minute Medical jargon	—
Musila 53	—	—