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: 17.22). 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.

1 Bookmark
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To explore stakeholders' perceptions of decision aids designed to support the informed consent decision-making process for randomised controlled trials.
    BMJ Open 01/2014; 4(8):e005734. · 1.58 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A shortage of transplantable organs is a global problem. There are two types of organ donation: living and deceased. Deceased organ donation can occur following neurological determination of death (NDD) or cardiocirculatory death. Donation after cardiocirculatory death (DCD) accounts for the largest increments in deceased organ donation worldwide. Variations in the use of DCD exist, however, within Canada and worldwide. Reasons for these discrepancies are largely unknown. The purpose of this study is to develop, implement, and evaluate a theory-based knowledge translation intervention to provide practical guidance about how to increase the numbers of DCD organ donors without reducing the numbers of standard NDD donors.
    Implementation Science 06/2014; 9(1):80. · 2.37 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Experts have called for the inclusion of values clarification (VC) exercises in decision aids (DAs) as a means of improving their effectiveness, but little research has examined the effects of such exercises. To determine whether adding a VC exercise to a DA on heart disease prevention improves decision-making outcomes. Randomized trial. UNC Decision Support Laboratory. Adults ages 40 to 80 with no history of cardiovascular disease. A Web-based heart disease prevention DA with or without a VC exercise. Pre- and postintervention decisional conflict and intent to reduce coronary heart disease (CHD) risk and postintervention self-efficacy and perceived values concordance. The authors enrolled 137 participants (62 in DA; 75 in DA + VC with moderate decisional conflict (DA 2.4; DA + VC 2.5) and no baseline differences among groups. After the interventions, they found no clinically or statistically significant differences between groups in decisional conflict (DA 1.8; DA + VC 1.9; absolute difference VC-DA 0.1, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.1 to 0.3), intent to reduce CHD risk (DA 98%; DA + VC 100%; absolute difference VC-DA: 2%, 95% CI: -0.02% to 5%), perceived values concordance (DA 95%; DA + VC 92%; absolute difference VC-DA -3%, 95% CI: -11% to +5%), or self-efficacy for risk reduction (DA 97%; DA + VC 92%; absolute difference VC-DA -5%, 95% CI: -13% to +3%). However, DA + VC tended to change some decisions about risk reduction strategies. Use of a hypothetical scenario; ceiling effects for some outcomes. Adding a VC intervention to a DA did not further improve decision-making outcomes in a population of highly educated and motivated adults responding to scenario-based questions. Work is needed to determine the effects of VC on more diverse populations and more distal outcomes.
    Medical Decision Making 01/2010; 30(4):E28-39. · 2.89 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 21, 2014