IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v34y2014i6p699-710.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Toward Minimum Standards for Certifying Patient Decision Aids

Author

Listed:
  • Natalie Joseph-Williams
  • Robert Newcombe
  • Mary Politi
  • Marie-Anne Durand
  • Stephanie Sivell
  • Dawn Stacey
  • Annette O’Connor
  • Robert J. Volk
  • Adrian Edwards
  • Carol Bennett
  • Michael Pignone
  • Richard Thomson
  • Glyn Elwyn

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Natalie Joseph-Williams & Robert Newcombe & Mary Politi & Marie-Anne Durand & Stephanie Sivell & Dawn Stacey & Annette O’Connor & Robert J. Volk & Adrian Edwards & Carol Bennett & Michael Pignone & , 2014. "Toward Minimum Standards for Certifying Patient Decision Aids," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(6), pages 699-710, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:34:y:2014:i:6:p:699-710
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X13501721
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X13501721
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X13501721?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
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Kuan-Lun Chen & Yun-Chen Hsu & Yi-Hsuan Li & Fei-Ran Guo & Jaw-Shiun Tsai & Shao-Yi Cheng & Hsien-Liang Huang, 2021. "Shared Decision-Making Model for Adolescent Smoking Cessation: Pilot Cohort Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(20), pages 1-13, October.
    2. Thomas, Elizabeth C. & Bass, Sarah Bauerle & Siminoff, Laura A., 2021. "Beyond rationality: Expanding the practice of shared decision making in modern medicine," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 277(C).
    3. Marzieh Fallah & Lanndon Ocampo, 2021. "The use of the Delphi method with non-parametric analysis for identifying sustainability criteria and indicators in evaluating ecotourism management: the case of Penang National Park (Malaysia)," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 45-62, March.

    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:sae:medema:v:34:y:2014:i:6:p:699-710. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.