Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Updated International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS version 5.0): modified Delphi, evidence informed consensus process

  • Robert J. Volk
  • , Krystina B. Lewis
  • , Maureen Smith
  • , Meg Carley
  • , Michael J. Barry
  • , Hilary L. Bekker
  • , Martin Härter
  • , Tammy Hoffmann
  • , Kirsten McCaffery
  • , Michael Pignone
  • , Karina Dahl Steffensen
  • , Karen Sepucha
  • , Rachel Thompson
  • , Lyndal Trevena
  • , Trudy van der Weijden
  • , Holly O. Witteman
  • , Dawn Stacey

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Patient decision aids (PDAs) are evidence informed tools designed to support patients in the process of making decisions about their health. The International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration last updated the standards in 2013 and the evidence about patient decision aids has expanded substantially. In this article, we report on an update to IPDAS that used a modified Delphi process with two rounds of voting to reach consensus on evidence informed changes to the criteria. The 202 participants were from 26 countries, and included patients/consumers, policy makers, researchers, and clinician researchers. IPDAS 5.0 includes seven qualifying criteria (necessary to be a patient decision aid), 10 essential criteria (necessary to reduce biased decisions), and 54 enhancing criteria (additional criteria that might improve the quality of a patient decision aid). The updated standards reflect the IPDAS Collaboration’s founding goal of providing high quality patient decision aids for patients that minimise potential biases in the decisions made about potential healthcare options.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article numbere088116
JournalBMJ
Volume393
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 12 2026

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • General Medicine

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Updated International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS version 5.0): modified Delphi, evidence informed consensus process'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this