Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process
Glyn Elwyn, Annette O'Connor, Dawn Stacey, Robert Volk, Adrian Edwards, Angela Coulter, Richard Thomson, Alexandra Barratt, Michael Barry, Steven Bernstein, Phyllis Butow, Aileen Clarke, Vikki Entwistle, Deb Feldman-Stewart, Margaret Holmes-Rovner, Hilary Llewellyn-Thomas, Nora Moumjid, Al Mulley, Cornelia Ruland, Karen Sepucha, Alan Sykes, Tim Whelan, International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration, Glyn Elwyn, Annette O'Connor, Dawn Stacey, Robert Volk, Adrian Edwards, Angela Coulter, Richard Thomson, Alexandra Barratt, Michael Barry, Steven Bernstein, Phyllis Butow, Aileen Clarke, Vikki Entwistle, Deb Feldman-Stewart, Margaret Holmes-Rovner, Hilary Llewellyn-Thomas, Nora Moumjid, Al Mulley, Cornelia Ruland, Karen Sepucha, Alan Sykes, Tim Whelan, International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration
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.
Figures
Source: PubMed