IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0004705.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing the Quality of Decision Support Technologies Using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards instrument (IPDASi)

Author

Listed:
  • Glyn Elwyn
  • Annette M O'Connor
  • Carol Bennett
  • Robert G Newcombe
  • Mary Politi
  • Marie-Anne Durand
  • Elizabeth Drake
  • Natalie Joseph-Williams
  • Sara Khangura
  • Anton Saarimaki
  • Stephanie Sivell
  • Mareike Stiel
  • Steven J Bernstein
  • Nananda Col
  • Angela Coulter
  • Karen Eden
  • Martin Härter
  • Margaret Holmes Rovner
  • Nora Moumjid
  • Dawn Stacey
  • Richard Thomson
  • Tim Whelan
  • Trudy van der Weijden
  • Adrian Edwards

Abstract

Objectives: To describe the development, validation and inter-rater reliability of an instrument to measure the quality of patient decision support technologies (decision aids). Design: Scale development study, involving construct, item and scale development, validation and reliability testing. Setting: There has been increasing use of decision support technologies – adjuncts to the discussions clinicians have with patients about difficult decisions. A global interest in developing these interventions exists among both for-profit and not-for-profit organisations. It is therefore essential to have internationally accepted standards to assess the quality of their development, process, content, potential bias and method of field testing and evaluation. Methods: Scale development study, involving construct, item and scale development, validation and reliability testing. Participants: Twenty-five researcher-members of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Collaboration worked together to develop the instrument (IPDASi). In the fourth Stage (reliability study), eight raters assessed thirty randomly selected decision support technologies. Results: IPDASi measures quality in 10 dimensions, using 47 items, and provides an overall quality score (scaled from 0 to 100) for each intervention. Overall IPDASi scores ranged from 33 to 82 across the decision support technologies sampled (n = 30), enabling discrimination. The inter-rater intraclass correlation for the overall quality score was 0.80. Correlations of dimension scores with the overall score were all positive (0.31 to 0.68). Cronbach's alpha values for the 8 raters ranged from 0.72 to 0.93. Cronbach's alphas based on the dimension means ranged from 0.50 to 0.81, indicating that the dimensions, although well correlated, measure different aspects of decision support technology quality. A short version (19 items) was also developed that had very similar mean scores to IPDASi and high correlation between short score and overall score 0.87 (CI 0.79 to 0.92). Conclusions: This work demonstrates that IPDASi has the ability to assess the quality of decision support technologies. The existing IPDASi provides an assessment of the quality of a DST's components and will be used as a tool to provide formative advice to DSTs developers and summative assessments for those who want to compare their tools against an existing benchmark.

Suggested Citation

  • Glyn Elwyn & Annette M O'Connor & Carol Bennett & Robert G Newcombe & Mary Politi & Marie-Anne Durand & Elizabeth Drake & Natalie Joseph-Williams & Sara Khangura & Anton Saarimaki & Stephanie Sivell &, 2009. "Assessing the Quality of Decision Support Technologies Using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards instrument (IPDASi)," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(3), pages 1-9, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0004705
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0004705
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0004705
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0004705&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0004705?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Margaret Holmes-Rovner & Wendy L. Nelson & Michael Pignone & Glyn Elwyn & David R. Rovner & Annette M. O'Connor & Angela Coulter & Rosaly Correa-de-Araujo, 2007. "Are Patient Decision Aids the Best Way to Improve Clinical Decision Making? Report of the IPDAS Symposium," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(5), pages 599-608, September.
    2. Annette M. O'Connor & Dawn Stacey & Michael J. Barry & Nananda F. Col & Karen B. Eden & Vikki Entwistle & Valerie Fiset & Margaret Holmes-Rovner & Sara Khangura & Hilary Llewellyn-Thomas & David R. Ro, 2007. "Do Patient Decision Aids Meet Effectiveness Criteria of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Collaboration? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(5), pages 554-574, September.
    3. Banta, David, 2003. "The development of health technology assessment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 121-132, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Maren Dreier & Birgit Borutta & Gabriele Seidel & Inga Münch & Silke Kramer & Jürgen Töppich & Marie-Luise Dierks & Ulla Walter, 2014. "Communicating the Benefits and Harms of Colorectal Cancer Screening Needed for an Informed Choice: A Systematic Evaluation of Leaflets and Booklets," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(9), pages 1-11, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sergey Motorny & Surendra Sarnikar & Cherie Noteboom, 2022. "Design of an Intelligent Patient Decision aid Based on Individual Decision-Making Styles and Information Need Preferences," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 1249-1264, August.
    2. Wang, Yi & Rattanavipapong, Waranya & Teerawattananon, Yot, 2021. "Using health technology assessment to set priority, inform target product profiles, and design clinical study for health innovation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    3. Velasco Garrido, Marcial & Gerhardus, Ansgar & Røttingen, John-Arne & Busse, Reinhard, 2010. "Developing Health Technology Assessment to address health care system needs," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(3), pages 196-202, March.
    4. Joshua P Vogel & Julia E Moore & Caitlyn Timmings & Sobia Khan & Dina N Khan & Atkure Defar & Azmach Hadush & Marta Minwyelet Terefe & Luwam Teshome & Katherine Ba-Thike & Kyu Kyu Than & Ahmad Makuwan, 2016. "Barriers, Facilitators and Priorities for Implementation of WHO Maternal and Perinatal Health Guidelines in Four Lower-Income Countries: A GREAT Network Research Activity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-18, November.
    5. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:2:p:141-146 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Armstrong, David, 2023. "The social life of risk probabilities in medicine," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 323(C).
    7. Cyr, Pascale Renée & Jain, Vageesh & Chalkidou, Kalipso & Ottersen, Trygve & Gopinathan, Unni, 2021. "Evaluations of public health interventions produced by health technology assessment agencies: A mapping review and analysis by type and evidence content," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(8), pages 1054-1064.
    8. A. Chapman & C. Taylor & A. Girling, 2014. "Are the UK Systems of Innovation and Evaluation of Medical Devices Compatible? The Role of NICE’s Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme (MTEP)," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 347-357, August.
    9. Bombard, Yvonne & Abelson, Julia & Simeonov, Dorina & Gauvin, Francois-Pierre, 2011. "Eliciting ethical and social values in health technology assessment: A participatory approach," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 135-144, July.
    10. Angela Fagerlin & Karen R. Sepucha & Mick P. Couper & Carrie A. Levin & Eleanor Singer & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2010. "Patients’ Knowledge about 9 Common Health Conditions: The DECISIONS Survey," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(5_suppl), pages 35-52, September.
    11. Elena Nicod, 2017. "Why do health technology assessment coverage recommendations for the same drugs differ across settings? Applying a mixed methods framework to systematically compare orphan drug decisions in four Europ," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 18(6), pages 715-730, July.
    12. Francesca Iandolo & Pietro Vito & Irene Fulco & Francesca Loia, 2018. "From Health Technology Assessment to Health Technology Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-22, December.
    13. Hartz, Susanne & John, Jürgen, 2009. "Public health policy decisions on medical innovations: What role can early economic evaluation play?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 184-192, February.
    14. Lopes, Edilene & Carter, Drew & Street, Jackie, 2015. "Power relations and contrasting conceptions of evidence in patient-involvement processes used to inform health funding decisions in Australia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 84-91.
    15. Milena Vainieri & Francesca Ferrè & Stefania Manetti, 2021. "An Integrated Framework to Measure the Performance of Inter-Organizational Programme on Health Technology Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-17, March.
    16. Gabriele Palozzi & Sandro Brunelli & Camilla Falivena, 2018. "Higher Sustainability and Lower Opportunistic Behaviour in Healthcare: A New Framework for Performing Hospital-Based Health Technology Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-19, October.
    17. Livio Garattini & Anna Padula, 2020. "HTA for pharmaceuticals in Europe: will the mountain deliver a mouse?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(1), pages 1-5, February.
    18. Panos Kanavos & Olivier Wouters & Hector E. Castro, 2017. "Advancing HTA in Latin America: The Policy Process of Setting up an HTA Agency in Colombia," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 8, pages 97-102, March.
    19. Christopher E. Knoepke & Erin L. Chaussee & Daniel D. Matlock & Jocelyn S. Thompson & Colleen K. McIlvennan & Amrut V. Ambardekar & Elisabeth M. Schaffer & Prateeti Khazanie & Laura Scherer & Robert M, 2022. "Changes over Time in Patient Stated Values and Treatment Preferences Regarding Aggressive Therapies: Insights from the DECIDE-LVAD Trial," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(3), pages 404-414, April.
    20. Lyndal Trevena, 2021. "Commentary on History of IPDAS," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 734-735, October.
    21. Mehmet Eren Ahsen & Mehmet Ulvi Saygi Ayvaci & Srinivasan Raghunathan, 2019. "When Algorithmic Predictions Use Human-Generated Data: A Bias-Aware Classification Algorithm for Breast Cancer Diagnosis," Service Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(1), pages 97-116, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0004705. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.