Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process

Abstract

Objective To develop a set of quality criteria for patient decision support technologies (decision aids). Design and setting Two stage web based Delphi process using online rating process to enable international collaboration. Participants Individuals from four stakeholder groups (researchers, practitioners, patients, policy makers) representing 14 countries reviewed evidence summaries and rated the importance of 80 criteria in 12 quality domains on a 1 to 9 scale. Second round participants received feedback from the first round and repeated their assessment of the 80 criteria plus three new ones. Main outcome measure Aggregate ratings for each criterion calculated using medians weighted to compensate for different numbers in stakeholder groups; criteria rated between 7 and 9 were retained. Results 212 nominated people were invited to participate. Of those invited, 122 participated in the first round (77 researchers, 21 patients, 10 practitioners, 14 policy makers); 104/122 (85%) participated in the second round. 74 of 83 criteria were retained in the following domains: systematic development process (9/9 criteria); providing information about options (13/13); presenting probabilities (11/13); clarifying and expressing values (3/3); using patient stories (2/5); guiding/coaching (3/5); disclosing conflicts of interest (5/5); providing internet access (6/6); balanced presentation of options (3/3); using plain language (4/6); basing information on up to date evidence (7/7); and establishing effectiveness (8/8). Conclusions Criteria were given the highest ratings where evidence existed, and these were retained. Gaps in research were highlighted. Developers, users, and purchasers of patient decision aids now have a checklist for appraising quality. An instrument for measuring quality of decision aids is being developed.

Is Shared Decision Making a Utopian Dream or an Achievable Goal?

“…Since 1989, more than 2,300 peer-reviewed articles have been published about the theory and practice of SDM, and the production of decision aids has flourished [19,20].…”

Decisional outcomes following use of an interactive web-based decision aid for prostate cancer screening

“…Briefly, the website was created in accordance with the International Patient Decision Aid Standard criteria [36] by providing balanced information about the risks and benefits of screening, showing a range of potential experiences with PCa screening, providing a means for patients to express their values, and using the most up-to-date literature. Further, the website allows for easy step-by-step navigation and allows for multiple visits, necessary criteria for web-based decision aids.…”

Discounting a Surgical Risk: Data, Understanding, and Gist

“…For instance, people interpret a danger as being more likely when it is stated using positive framing (e.g., saying that 4 percent will experience it), than when stated using negative framing (e.g., saying that 96 percent will not experience it) [14]. Some guidelines recommend that doctors provide both positive and negative framing of outcomes to avoid causing bias [15]. This approach, however, can be quite confusing, especially for those who have limited numeracy, and presenting the negative framing allows people to focus on the chance that the risk will not occur, resulting in the optimism bias.…”