Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process
By G. Elwyn, A. O'Connor, D. Stacey, R. Volk, A. Edwards, A. Coulter, R. Thomson, A. Barratt, M. Barry, S. Bernstein and 12 more. British medical journal, 2006
1,665 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Abstract Objective To develop a set of quality criteria for patient decision support technologies (decision aids). Design and setting Two stage web based Delphi process using online rating process to enable international collaboration. Participants Individuals from four stakeholder groups (researchers, practitioners, patients, policy makers) representing 14 countries reviewed evidence summaries and rated the importance of 80 criteria in 12 quality domains ona1to9 scale. Second round participants received feedback from the first round and repeated their assessment of the 80 criteria plus three new ones. Main outcome measure Aggregate ratings for each criterion calculated using medians weighted to compensate for different numbers in stakeholder groups; criteria rated between 7 and 9 were retained. Results 212 nominated people were invited to participate. Of those invited, 122 participated in the first round (77 researchers, 21 patients, 10 practitioners, 14 policy makers); 104/122 (85%) participated in the second round. 74 of 83 criteria were retained in the following domains: systematic development process (9/9 criteria); providing information about options (13/13); presenting probabilities (11/13); clarifying and expressing values (3/3); using patient stories (2/5); guiding/coaching (3/5); disclosing conflicts of interest (5/5); providing internet access (6/6); balanced presentation of options (3/3); using plain language (4/6); basing information on up to date evidence (7/7); and establishing effectiveness (8/8). Conclusions Criteria were given the highest ratings where evidence existed, and these were retained. Gaps in research were highlighted. Developers, users, and purchasers of patient decision aids now have a checklist for appraising quality. An instrument for measuring quality of decision aids is being developed.
Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Economics and Econometrics, General Health Professions
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/16314928a6e6b421ef1ba8300ce4c8f161335573
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Economics and Econometrics
In General Health Professions
Citations in the corpus
- The applications of PROs in clinical practice: what are they, do they work, and why? (2009, background): “Decision aids usually have three main elements [36].”
- “Many miles to go …”: a systematic review of the implementation of patient decision support interventions into routine clinical practice (2013, methodology): “The stimulus for this review arose from work being undertaken by the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration, which has produced a checklist [15] and an instrument to assess the quality of these interventions [16].”
- A systematic development process for patient decision aids (2013, background): “In many cases it was difficult to gauge from the trial reports whether a development process along the lines recommended in IPDAS had been followed or not.”