Article

Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process.

Department of General Practice, Centre for Health Sciences Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF14 4YS.
BMJ (online) (Impact Factor: 16.38). 09/2006; 333(7565):417. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.38926.629329.AE
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To develop a set of quality criteria for patient decision support technologies (decision aids).
Two stage web based Delphi process using online rating process to enable international collaboration.
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 on a 1 to 9 scale. Second round participants received feedback from the first round and repeated their assessment of the 80 criteria plus three new ones.
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.
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).
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.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Margaret Holmes-Rovner, Jun 29, 2015
1 Follower
 · 
149 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Informed consent for research has emphasized information provision over support to people making a difficult decision. We assessed the extent to which existing informed consent documents (ICDs) conform to the International Patient Decision Aid Standards for supporting decision making. One hundred thirty-nine ICDs for trials registered with ClinicalTrials.gov were obtained from study investigators. Using a four-point scale, two raters assessed each ICD on 32 items. Overall agreement between raters was 95.1% (linear weighted kappa-0.745). For 12 items focused on providing enough information, conformity was above 50% for three, and 0% for another four. For all eight items focused on how to present outcome probabilities, conformity was below 20%. For two items focused on clarifying and expressing values, conformity was below 10%. For two items focused on improving structured guidance, conformity was below 5%. For four items focused on using evidence, one item showed conformity of 74%; all others showed conformity below 5%. For four items focused on transparency, conformity was high (above 60% for two, above 80% for the others). Existing ICDs do not meet most validated standards for encouraging good decision making. These standards make clear predictions about how one might improve ICDs ensure that research participants are fully informed.
    Journal of clinical epidemiology 04/2012; 65(7):708-24. DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.01.004 · 5.48 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Support for a model of shared medical decision making, where women and their care providers discuss risks and benefits of their different options, reveal their preferences, and jointly make a decision, is a growing expectation in obstetric care. The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of different decision aid tools compared to regular care for women facing several options in the specific field of obstetric care. We included published studies about interventions designed to aid mothers' decision making and provide information about obstetrical treatment or screening options. Following a search of electronic databases for articles published in English and French from 1994 to 2010, we found ten studies that met the inclusion criteria. In this systematic review and meta-analysis we found that all decision aid tools, except for Decision Trees, facilitated significant increases in knowledge. The Computer-based Information Tool, the Decision Analysis Tools, Individual Counseling and Group Counseling intervention presented significant results in reducing anxiety levels. The Decision Analysis Tools and the Computer-based Information tool were associated with a reduction in levels of decisional conflict. The Decision Analysis Tool was the only tool that presented evidence of an impact on the final choice and final outcome. Decision aid tools can assist health professionals to provide information and counseling about choices during pregnancy and support women in shared decision making. The choice of a specific tool should depend on resources available to support their use as well as the specific decisions being faced by women, their health care setting and providers.
    Social Science [?] Medicine 03/2012; 74(12):1968-78. DOI:10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.01.041 · 2.56 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To evaluate the effectiveness of a web-based, individually tailored decision aid (Patient Dialogue) on depression or acute low back pain for insurees of a German sickness fund. Patient Dialogue (PD) was compared to the non-tailored Static Patient Information (SPI) in an online randomized controlled trial (RCT). The primary outcome was decisional conflict; secondary outcomes included knowledge, preparation for decision-making, preference for participation, involvement in decision-making, decision regret, and adherence. Out of 2480 randomized participants, 657 (26.5%) provided analyzable data immediately after using the system. Three months later, data from 131 (5.3%) participants could be included in the analysis. The PD group reported a significantly lower overall decisional conflict than the SPI group (38.7 vs. 45.1; p=0.028 via multiple imputation estimator). The largest standardized effect (Cohen's d 0.56) resulted from the preparation for decision-making (PD 59.4 vs. SPI 46.8; p<0.001). PD may be an effective tool to reduce decisional conflict and prepare participants for treatment decision-making. However, the large dropout rate needs to be taken into account. This study shows how a health insurance fund can support shared decision-making and how a decision aid can be evaluated in a RCT under routine care conditions.
    Patient Education and Counseling 12/2011; 87(3):360-8. DOI:10.1016/j.pec.2011.10.009 · 2.60 Impact Factor