Toward Minimum Standards for Certifying Patient Decision Aids

Author:

Joseph-Williams Natalie12345,Newcombe Robert12345,Politi Mary12345,Durand Marie-Anne12345,Sivell Stephanie12345,Stacey Dawn12345,O’Connor Annette12345,Volk Robert J.12345,Edwards Adrian12345,Bennett Carol12345,Pignone Michael12345,Thomson Richard12345,Elwyn Glyn12345

Affiliation:

1. Institute of Primary Care and Public Health, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK (NJ-W, RN, AE, GE)

2. Division of Public Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO (MP)

3. Department of Psychology, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK (M-AD)

4. Marie Curie Palliative Care Research Centre, Wales Cancer Trials Unit, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK (SS)

5. Faculty of Health Sciences, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada (DS, CB)

Abstract

Objective. The IPDAS Collaboration has developed a checklist and an instrument (IPDASi v3.0) to assess the quality of patient decision aids (PDAs) in terms of their development process and shared decision-making design components. Certification of PDAs is of growing interest in the US and elsewhere. We report a modified Delphi consensus process to agree on IPDASi (v3.0) items that should be considered as minimum standards for PDA certification, for inclusion in the refined IPDASi (v4.0). Methods. A 2-stage Delphi voting process considered the inclusion of IPDASi (v3.0) items as minimum standards. Item scores and qualitative comments were analyzed, followed by expert group discussion. Results. One hundred and one people voted in round 1; 87 in round 2. Forty-seven items were reduced to 44 items across 3 new categories: 1) qualifying criteria, which are required in order for an intervention to be considered a decision aid (6 items); 2) certification criteria, without which a decision aid is judged to have a high risk of harmful bias (10 items); and 3) quality criteria, believed to strengthen a decision aid but whose omission does not present a high risk of harmful bias (28 items). Conclusions. This study provides preliminary certification criteria for PDAs. Scoring and rating processes need to be tested and finalized. However, the process of appraising the quality of the clinical evidence reported by the PDA should be used to complement these criteria; the proposed standards are designed to rate the quality of the development process and shared decision-making design elements, not the quality of the PDA’s clinical content.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Health Policy

Reference3 articles.

1. Wennberg J. Tracking Medicine: A Researcher’s Quest to Understand Health Care. New York: Oxford University Press; 2010.

2. Elwyn G, Edwards A, eds. Shared Decision Making in Health Care: Achieving Evidence Based Patient Choice. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2009.

3. QSR International Pty Ltd. NVivo Qualitative Data Analysis Software. Version 8. Warrington, UK: QSR International Pty Ltd; 2010.

Cited by 358 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3