TY - JOUR
T1 - Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids
T2 - Online international Delphi consensus process
AU - on behalf of the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration
AU - Elwyn, Glyn
AU - O'Connor, Annette
AU - Stacey, Dawn
AU - Volk, Robert
AU - Edwards, Adrian
AU - Coulter, Angela
AU - Thomson, Richard
AU - Barratt, Alexandra
AU - Butow, Phyllis
AU - Barry, Michael
AU - Mulley, Albert G.
AU - Sepucha, Karen
AU - Bernstein, Steven
AU - Clarke, Aileen
AU - Entwistle, Vikki
AU - Feldman-Stewart, Deb
AU - Holmes-Rovner, Margaret
AU - Holmes-Rovner, Margaret
AU - Llewellyn-Thomas, Hilary
AU - Moumjid, Nora
AU - Ruland, Cornelia
AU - Sykes, Alan
AU - Whelan, Tim
PY - 2006/8/26
Y1 - 2006/8/26
N2 - 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 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. 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.
AB - 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 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. 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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33748272120&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33748272120&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1136/bmj.38926.629329.AE
DO - 10.1136/bmj.38926.629329.AE
M3 - Review article
C2 - 16908462
AN - SCOPUS:33748272120
SN - 0959-8146
VL - 333
SP - 417
EP - 419
JO - British Medical Journal
JF - British Medical Journal
IS - 7565
ER -