Systematic Development of Patient Decision Aids: An Update from the IPDAS Collaboration

Author:

Witteman Holly O.123ORCID,Maki Kristin G.4,Vaisson Gratianne5,Finderup Jeanette6,Lewis Krystina B.78ORCID,Dahl Steffensen Karina910,Beaudoin Caroline11,Comeau Sandrine11,Volk Robert J.4ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Family and Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Laval University, Quebec City, Canada

2. VITAM Research Centre, Quebec City, Canada

3. CHU de Québec Research Centre, Quebec City, Canada

4. Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA

5. Department of Family and Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Laval University, Quebec City, Québec, Canada

6. Research Centre for Patient Involvement & Department of Renal Medicine, Aarhus University & Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark

7. School of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada

8. University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada

9. Center for Shared Decision Making/Department of Oncology, Lillebaelt University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Vejle, Denmark

10. Institute of Regional Health Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, Vejle, Denmark

11. Department of Family and Emergency Medicine, Laval University, Quebec, Canada

Abstract

Background The 2013 update of the evidence informing the quality dimensions behind the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) offered a model process for developers of patient decision aids. Objective To summarize and update the evidence used to inform the systematic development of patient decision aids from the IPDAS Collaboration. Methods To provide further details about design and development methods, we summarized findings from a subgroup ( n = 283 patient decision aid projects) in a recent systematic review of user involvement by Vaisson et al. Using a new measure of user-centeredness (UCD-11), we then rated the degree of user-centeredness reported in 66 articles describing patient decision aid development and citing the 2013 IPDAS update on systematic development. We contacted the 66 articles’ authors to request their self-reports of UCD-11 items. Results The 283 development processes varied substantially from minimal iteration cycles to more complex processes, with multiple iterations, needs assessments, and extensive involvement of end users. We summarized minimal, medium, and maximal processes from the data. Authors of 54 of 66 articles (82%) provided self-reported UCD-11 ratings. Self-reported scores were significantly higher than reviewer ratings (reviewers: mean [SD] = 6.45 [3.10]; authors: mean [SD] = 9.62 [1.16], P < 0.001). Conclusions Decision aid developers have embraced principles of user-centered design in the development of patient decision aids while also underreporting aspects of user involvement in publications about their tools. Templates may reduce the need for extensive development, and new approaches for rapid development of aids have been proposed when a more detailed approach is not feasible. We provide empirically derived benchmark processes and a reporting checklist to support developers in more fully describing their development processes. [Box: see text]

Funder

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute

National Cancer Institute

canadian institutes of health research

Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Health Policy

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