Toward Minimum Standards for Certifying Patient Decision Aids: A Modified Delphi Consensus Process

被引:361
作者
Joseph-Williams, Natalie [1 ]
Newcombe, Robert [1 ]
Politi, Mary [2 ]
Durand, Marie-Anne [3 ]
Sivell, Stephanie [4 ]
Stacey, Dawn [5 ]
O'Connor, Annette [6 ]
Volk, Robert J. [7 ]
Edwards, Adrian [1 ]
Bennett, Carol [5 ]
Pignone, Michael [8 ]
Thomson, Richard [9 ]
Elwyn, Glyn [1 ,10 ]
机构
[1] Cardiff Univ, Inst Primary Care & Publ Hlth, Cardiff CF14 4YS, S Glam, Wales
[2] Washington Univ, Sch Med, Dept Surg, Div Publ Hlth Sci, St Louis, MO 63110 USA
[3] Univ Hertfordshire, Dept Psychol, Hatfield AL10 9AB, Herts, England
[4] Cardiff Univ, Wales Canc Trials Unit, Marie Curie Palliat Care Res Ctr, Cardiff CF14 4YS, S Glam, Wales
[5] Univ Ottawa, Fac Hlth Sci, Ottawa Hosp, Res Inst, Ottawa, ON, Canada
[6] Univ Ottawa, Fac Hlth Sci, Ottawa, ON, Canada
[7] Univ Texas MD Anderson Canc Ctr, Dept Gen Internal Med, Houston, TX 77030 USA
[8] Univ N Carolina, Dept Med, Div Gen Internal Med, Chapel Hill, NC USA
[9] Newcastle Univ, Inst Hlth & Soc, Newcastle Upon Tyne NE1 7RU, Tyne & Wear, England
[10] Dartmouth Coll, Dartmouth Ctr Hlth Care Delivery Sci, Hanover, NH 03755 USA
关键词
outcomes research; decision aid research; patient decision making; shared decision making; QUALITY;
D O I
10.1177/0272989X13501721
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页码:699 / 710
页数:12
相关论文
共 14 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], PAT SAK PAT 1 REV CO
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2008, NVIVO QUALITATIVE DA
[3]  
[Anonymous], HEALTH AFF MILLWOOD
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2010, EQ EXC LIB NHS
[5]  
[Anonymous], 2003, APPR GUID RES EV AGR
[6]   The loss of reason in patient decision aid research: Do checklists damage the quality of informed choice interventions? [J].
Bekker, Hilary L. .
PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING, 2010, 78 (03) :357-364
[7]  
Charles C., 2010, Psicooncologia, V7, P243
[8]  
Elwyn G., 2009, SHARED DECISION MAKI, V2nd
[9]   Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process [J].
Elwyn, Glyn ;
O'Connor, Annette ;
Stacey, Dawn ;
Volk, Robert ;
Edwards, Adrian ;
Coulter, Angela ;
Thomson, Richard ;
Barrat, Alexandra ;
Butow, Phyllis ;
Barry, Michael ;
Mulley, Albert G. ;
Sepucha, Karen ;
Bernstein, Steven ;
Clarke, Aileen ;
Entwistle, Vikki ;
Feldman-Stewart, Deb ;
Holmes-Rovner, Margaret ;
Llewellyn-Thomas, Hilary ;
Moumjid, Nora ;
Ruland, Cornelia ;
Sykes, Alan ;
Whelan, Tim .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2006, 333 (7565) :417-419
[10]   Investing in Deliberation: A Definition and Classification of Decision Support Interventions for People Facing Difficult Health Decisions [J].
Elwyn, Glyn ;
Frosch, Dominick ;
Volandes, Angelo E. ;
Edwards, Adrian ;
Montori, Victor M. .
MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 2010, 30 (06) :701-711