TY - JOUR
T1 - Standards for UNiversal reporting of patient Decision Aid Evaluation studies
T2 - the development of SUNDAE Checklist
AU - Sepucha, Karen R.
AU - Abhyankar, Purva
AU - Hoffman, Aubri S.
AU - Bekker, Hilary L.
AU - LeBlanc, Annie
AU - Levin, Carrie A.
AU - Ropka, Mary
AU - Shaffer, Victoria A.
AU - Sheridan, Stacey L.
AU - Stacey, Dawn
AU - Stalmeier, Peep
AU - Vo, Ha
AU - Wills, Celia E.
AU - Thomson, Richard
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved.
PY - 2018/5
Y1 - 2018/5
N2 - Background Patient decision aids (PDAs) are evidence-based tools designed to help patients make specific and deliberated choices among healthcare options. The International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration review papers and Cochrane systematic review of PDAs have found significant gaps in the reporting of evaluations of PDAs, including poor or limited reporting of PDA content, development methods and delivery. This study sought to develop and reach consensus on reporting guidelines to improve the quality of publications evaluating PDAs. Methods An international workgroup, consisting of members from IPDAS Collaboration, followed established methods to develop reporting guidelines for PDA evaluation studies. This paper describes the results from three completed phases: (1) planning, (2) drafting and (3) consensus, which included a modified, two-stage, online international Delphi process. The work was conducted over 2 years with bimonthly conference calls and three in-person meetings. The workgroup used input from these phases to produce a final set of recommended items in the form of a checklist. Results The SUNDAE Checklist (Standards for UNiversal reporting of patient Decision Aid Evaluations) includes 26 items recommended for studies reporting evaluations of PDAs. In the two-stage Delphi process, 117/143 (82%) experts from 14 countries completed round 1 and 96/117 (82%) completed round 2. Respondents reached a high level of consensus on the importance of the items and indicated strong willingness to use the items when reporting PDA studies. Conclusion The SUNDAE Checklist will help ensure that reports of PDA evaluation studies are understandable, transparent and of high quality. A separate Explanation and Elaboration publication provides additional details to support use of the checklist.
AB - Background Patient decision aids (PDAs) are evidence-based tools designed to help patients make specific and deliberated choices among healthcare options. The International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration review papers and Cochrane systematic review of PDAs have found significant gaps in the reporting of evaluations of PDAs, including poor or limited reporting of PDA content, development methods and delivery. This study sought to develop and reach consensus on reporting guidelines to improve the quality of publications evaluating PDAs. Methods An international workgroup, consisting of members from IPDAS Collaboration, followed established methods to develop reporting guidelines for PDA evaluation studies. This paper describes the results from three completed phases: (1) planning, (2) drafting and (3) consensus, which included a modified, two-stage, online international Delphi process. The work was conducted over 2 years with bimonthly conference calls and three in-person meetings. The workgroup used input from these phases to produce a final set of recommended items in the form of a checklist. Results The SUNDAE Checklist (Standards for UNiversal reporting of patient Decision Aid Evaluations) includes 26 items recommended for studies reporting evaluations of PDAs. In the two-stage Delphi process, 117/143 (82%) experts from 14 countries completed round 1 and 96/117 (82%) completed round 2. Respondents reached a high level of consensus on the importance of the items and indicated strong willingness to use the items when reporting PDA studies. Conclusion The SUNDAE Checklist will help ensure that reports of PDA evaluation studies are understandable, transparent and of high quality. A separate Explanation and Elaboration publication provides additional details to support use of the checklist.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85057738654&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85057738654&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1136/bmjqs-2017-006986
DO - 10.1136/bmjqs-2017-006986
M3 - Article
C2 - 29269567
AN - SCOPUS:85057738654
SN - 2044-5415
VL - 27
SP - 380
EP - 388
JO - BMJ Quality and Safety
JF - BMJ Quality and Safety
IS - 5
ER -