OBJECTIVE: The involvement of consumers in the development of dietary guidelines has been promoted by national and international bodies. Yet, few best practice guidelines have been established to assist with such involvement. DESIGN: Qualitative semi-structured interviews explored stakeholders' beliefs about consumer involvement in dietary guideline development. SETTING: Interviews were conducted in six European countries: the Czech Republic, Germany, Norway, Serbia, Spain and the UK. SUBJECTS: Seventy-seven stakeholders were interviewed. Stakeholders were grouped as government, scientific advisory body, professional and academic, industry or non-government organisations. Response rate ranged from 45 % to 95 %. RESULTS: Thematic analysis was conducted with the assistance of NVivo qualitative software. Analysis identified two main themes: (i) type of consumer involvement and (ii) pros and cons of consumer involvement. Direct consumer involvement (e.g. consumer organisations) in the decision-making process was discussed as a facilitator to guideline communication towards the end of the process. Indirect consumer involvement (e.g. consumer research data) was considered at both the beginning and the end of the process. Cons to consumer involvement included the effect of vested interests on objectivity; consumer disinterest; and complications in terms of time, finance and technical understanding. Pros related to increased credibility and trust in the process. CONCLUSIONS: Stakeholders acknowledged benefits to consumer involvement during the development of dietary guidelines, but remained unclear on the advantage of direct contributions to the scientific content of guidelines. In the absence of established best practice, clarity on the type and reasons for consumer involvement would benefit all actors.

Food Consumer Behaviour and Health Research Centre Department of Psychology Faculty of Arts and Human Sciences University of Surrey Guildford Surrey GU2 7XH UK

Zobrazit více v PubMed

European Commission (2002) Science and Society Action Plan. Brussels: European Commission.

Hanley B, Bradburn J, Barnes M et al. et al. (2004) Involving the Public in NHS, Public Health and Social Care Research: Briefing Notes for Researchers, 2nd ed. Eastleigh: INVOLVE Support Unit; available at http://www.twocanassociates.co.uk/perch/resources/files/Briefing%20Note%20Final_dat(2).pdf

Horey D (2010) Consumer Involvement in the Cochrane Collaboration: Background Paper. Auckland: Cochrane Collaboration.

European Food Safety Authority, Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition, and Allergies (2010) Scientific Opinion on principles for deriving and applying Dietary Reference Values. EFSA J 8, 1458.

World Health Organization (1996) Preparation and Use of Food-Based Dietary Guidelines: Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Consultation. Geneva: WHO. PubMed

Entwistle VA, Renfrew MJ, Yearley S et al. et al. (1998) Lay perspectives: advantages for health research. BMJ 316, 463–466. PubMed PMC

Saunders C & Girgis A (2010) Status, challenges and facilitators of consumer involvement in Australian health and medical research. Health Res Policy Syst 8, 34. PubMed PMC

European Commission (2000) Science, Society and Citizens in Europe. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.

Timotijevic L, Raats MM, Barnett J et al. et al. (2010) From micronutrient recommendations to policy: consumer and stakeholder involvement. Eur J Clin Nutr 64, Suppl. 2, S31–S37. PubMed

World Health Organization (1978) Declaration of Alma-Ata. Geneva: WHO.

European Commission (2001) European Governance: A White Paper. COM (2001) 428 Final. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.

Irwin A & Michael M (2003) Science, Social Theory and Public Knowledge. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Boote J, Telford R & Cooper C (2002) Consumer involvement in health research: a review and research agenda. Health Policy 61, 213–236. PubMed

Williamson C (1998) The rise of doctor–patient working groups. BMJ 317, 1374–1377. PubMed PMC

Baggott R & Forster R (2008) Health consumer and patients’ organizations in Europe: towards a comparative analysis. Health Expect 11, 85–94. PubMed PMC

Telford R, Beverley C, Cooper C et al. et al. (2002) Consumer involvement in health research: fact or fiction? Br J Clin Govern 7, 92–103.

Arnstein SR (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Inst Plann 35, 216–224.

Tritter JQ & McCallum A (2006) The snakes and ladders of user involvement: moving beyond Arnstein. Health Policy 76, 156–168. PubMed

Hanley B, Truesdale A, King A et al. et al. (2001) Involving consumers in designing, conducting, and interpreting randomised controlled trials: questionnaire survey. BMJ 322, 519–523. PubMed PMC

Oliver S, Clarke-Jones L, Rees R et al. et al. (2004) Involving consumers in research and development agenda setting for the NHS: developing an evidence-based approach. Health Technol Assess 8, issue 15, 1–148. PubMed

Rowe G & Frewer LJ (2005) A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Sci Technol Hum Values 30, 251–290.

Nilsen E, Myrhaug H, Johansen M et al. et al. (2006) Methods of consumer involvement in the development of healthcare policy and research, clinical practice guidelines and patient information material. Cochrane Database Syst Rev issue 3, CD004563. PubMed PMC

Rowe G, Rawsthorne D, Scarpello T et al. et al. (2010) Public engagement in research funding: a study of public capabilities and engagement methodology. Public Underst Sci 19, 225–239. PubMed

Walls J, Rowe G & Frewer L (2011) Stakeholder engagement in food risk management: evaluation of an iterated workshop approach. Public Underst Sci 20, 241–260.

Brown KA, Timotijevic L, Barnett J et al. et al. (2011) A review of consumer awareness, understanding and use of food-based dietary guidelines. Br J Nutr 106, 15–26. PubMed

Brown KA, Timotijevic L, Barnett J et al. et al. (2011) Micronutrient recommendation stakeholders’ beliefs on dietary guidelines: a qualitative study across six European countries/regions. Eur J Clin Nutr 65, 872–874. PubMed

Boyatzis RE (1998) Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Joffe H & Yardley L (2004) Content and thematic analysis. In Research Methods for Clinical and Health Psychology, pp. 56–68 [D Marks and L Yardley, editors]. London: SAGE Publications.

Maranta A, Guggenheim M, Gisler P et al. et al. (2003) The reality of experts and the imagined lay person. Acta Sociol 46, 150–165.

Crawford MJ, Rutter D, Manley C et al. et al. (2002) Systematic review of involving patients in the planning and development of health care. BMJ 325, 1263–1265. PubMed PMC

Schunemann HJ, Fretheim A & Oxman AD (2006) Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 10. Integrating values and consumer involvement. Health Res Policy Syst 4, 22. PubMed PMC

Norris SL, Holmer HK, Burda BU et al. et al. (2012) Conflict of interest policies for organizations producing a large number of clinical practice guidelines. PLoS One 7, e37413. PubMed PMC

Government Office for Science (2011) Code of Practice for Scientific Advisory Committees (CoPSAC 2011). London: Government Office for Science.

Schütz T, Herbst B & Koller M (2006) Methodology for the development of the ESPEN guidelines on enteral nutrition. Clin Nutr 25, 203–209. PubMed

Harris RP, Helfand M, Woolf SH et al. et al. (2001) Current methods of the US Preventive Services Task Force: a review of the process. Am J Prev Med 20, 21–35. PubMed

House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology (2000) Science and Society (Third Report). London: HMSO.

Vale CL, Thompson LC, Murphy C et al. et al. (2012) Involvement of consumers in studies run by the Medical Research Council (MRC) clinical trials unit: results of a survey. Trials 13, 9. PubMed PMC

Coveney J (2008) Food and trust in Australia: building a picture. Public Health Nutr 11, 237–245. PubMed

Fischler C (1988) Food, self and identity. Soc Sci Inform 27, 275–292.

Doets EL, de Wit LS, Dhonukshe-Rutten RAM et al. et al. (2008) Current micronutrient recommendations in Europe: towards understanding their differences and similarities. Eur J Nutr 47, 17–40. PubMed

Fudge N, Wolfe CDA & McKevitt C (2008) Assessing the promise of user involvement in health service development: ethnographic study. BMJ 336, 313–317. PubMed PMC

Kelson M (2005) The NICE patient involvement unit. Evid Based Healthcare Public Health 9, 304–307.

Telford R, Boote JD & Cooper CL (2004) What does it mean to involve consumers successfully in NHS research? A consensus study. Health Expect 7, 209–220. PubMed PMC