IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v41y2021i7p736-754.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Systematic Development of Patient Decision Aids: An Update from the IPDAS Collaboration

Author

Listed:
  • Holly O. Witteman

    (Department of Family and Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Laval University, Quebec City, Canada
    VITAM Research Centre, Quebec City, Canada
    CHU de Québec Research Centre, Quebec City, Canada)

  • Kristin G. Maki

    (Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA)

  • Gratianne Vaisson

    (Department of Family and Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Laval University, Quebec City, Québec, Canada)

  • Jeanette Finderup

    (Research Centre for Patient Involvement & Department of Renal Medicine, Aarhus University & Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark)

  • Krystina B. Lewis

    (School of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
    University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada)

  • Karina Dahl Steffensen

    (Center for Shared Decision Making/Department of Oncology, Lillebaelt University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Vejle, Denmark
    Institute of Regional Health Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, Vejle, Denmark)

  • Caroline Beaudoin

    (Department of Family and Emergency Medicine, Laval University, Quebec, Canada)

  • Sandrine Comeau

    (Department of Family and Emergency Medicine, Laval University, Quebec, Canada)

  • Robert J. Volk

    (Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA)

Abstract

Background The 2013 update of the evidence informing the quality dimensions behind the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) offered a model process for developers of patient decision aids. Objective To summarize and update the evidence used to inform the systematic development of patient decision aids from the IPDAS Collaboration. Methods To provide further details about design and development methods, we summarized findings from a subgroup ( n = 283 patient decision aid projects) in a recent systematic review of user involvement by Vaisson et al. Using a new measure of user-centeredness (UCD-11), we then rated the degree of user-centeredness reported in 66 articles describing patient decision aid development and citing the 2013 IPDAS update on systematic development. We contacted the 66 articles’ authors to request their self-reports of UCD-11 items. Results The 283 development processes varied substantially from minimal iteration cycles to more complex processes, with multiple iterations, needs assessments, and extensive involvement of end users. We summarized minimal, medium, and maximal processes from the data. Authors of 54 of 66 articles (82%) provided self-reported UCD-11 ratings. Self-reported scores were significantly higher than reviewer ratings (reviewers: mean [SD] = 6.45 [3.10]; authors: mean [SD] = 9.62 [1.16], P

Suggested Citation

  • Holly O. Witteman & Kristin G. Maki & Gratianne Vaisson & Jeanette Finderup & Krystina B. Lewis & Karina Dahl Steffensen & Caroline Beaudoin & Sandrine Comeau & Robert J. Volk, 2021. "Systematic Development of Patient Decision Aids: An Update from the IPDAS Collaboration," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 736-754, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:41:y:2021:i:7:p:736-754
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X211014163
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X211014163
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X211014163?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. Dawn Stacey & France Légaré & Anne Lyddiatt & Anik M. C. Giguere & Manosila Yoganathan & Anton Saarimaki & Jordi Pardo Pardo & Tamara Rader & Peter Tugwell, 2016. "Translating Evidence to Facilitate Shared Decision Making: Development and Usability of a Consult Decision Aid Prototype," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 9(6), pages 571-582, December.
    2. Hoda HM Al‐Itejawi & Cornelia F van Uden‐Kraan & André N Vis & Jakko A Nieuwenhuijzen & Myrna JA Hofstee & Reindert Jeroen A van Moorselaar & Irma M Verdonck‐de Leeuw, 2016. "Development of a patient decision aid for the treatment of localised prostate cancer: a participatory design approach," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(7-8), pages 1131-1144, April.
    3. Dawn Stacey & Victoria Suwalska & Laura Boland & Krystina B. Lewis & Justin Presseau & Richard Thomson, 2019. "Are Patient Decision Aids Used in Clinical Practice after Rigorous Evaluation? A Survey of Trial Authors," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(7), pages 805-815, October.
    4. Peter D. Coxeter & Chris B. Del Mar & Tammy C. Hoffmann, 2017. "Preparing Parents to Make An Informed Choice About Antibiotic Use for Common Acute Respiratory Infections in Children: A Randomised Trial of Brief Decision Aids in a Hypothetical Scenario," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 10(4), pages 463-474, August.
    5. Dawn Stacey & Claire Ludwig & Patrick Archambault & Kevin Babulic & Nancy Edwards & Josée Lavoie & Samir Sinha & Annette M. O’Connor, 2021. "Feasibility of Rapidly Developing and Widely Disseminating Patient Decision Aids to Respond to Urgent Decisional Needs due to the COVID-19 Pandemic," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(2), pages 233-239, February.
    6. Gratianne Vaisson & Thierry Provencher & Michèle Dugas & Marie-Ève Trottier & Selma Chipenda Dansokho & Heather Colquhoun & Angela Fagerlin & Anik M. C. Giguere & Hina Hakim & Lynne Haslett & Aubri , 2021. "User Involvement in the Design and Development of Patient Decision Aids and Other Personal Health Tools: A Systematic Review," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(3), pages 261-274, April.
    7. Dawn Stacey & France Légaré & Laura Boland & Krystina B. Lewis & Marie-Chantal Loiselle & Lauren Hoefel & Mirjam Garvelink & Annette O’Connor, 2020. "20th Anniversary Ottawa Decision Support Framework: Part 3 Overview of Systematic Reviews and Updated Framework," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(3), pages 379-398, April.
    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. Helle Sorensen von Essen & Frantz Rom Poulsen & Rikke Hedegaard Dahlrot & Karin Piil & Karina Dahl Steffensen, 2022. "Development of a Patient Decision Aid to Support Shared Decision Making for Patients with Recurrent High-Grade Glioma," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(12), pages 1-17, June.
    2. Dawn Stacey & Robert J. Volk, 2021. "The International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration: Evidence Update 2.0," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 729-733, October.

    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. Anne Christin Rahn & Janet Jull & Laura Boland & Jeanette Finderup & Marie-Chantal Loiselle & Maureen Smith & Sascha Köpke & Dawn Stacey, 2021. "Guidance and/or Decision Coaching with Patient Decision Aids: Scoping Reviews to Inform the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS)," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 938-953, October.
    2. Helle Sorensen von Essen & Frantz Rom Poulsen & Rikke Hedegaard Dahlrot & Karin Piil & Karina Dahl Steffensen, 2022. "Development of a Patient Decision Aid to Support Shared Decision Making for Patients with Recurrent High-Grade Glioma," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(12), pages 1-17, June.
    3. Yueh-Ling Liao & Tsae-Jyy Wang & Chien-Wei Su & Shu-Yuan Liang & Chieh-Yu Liu & Jun-Yu Fan, 2023. "Efficacy of a Decision Support Intervention on Decisional Conflict Related to Hepatocellular Cancer Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Trial," Clinical Nursing Research, , vol. 32(1), pages 233-243, January.
    4. Yulia Gendler & Ayala Blau, 2024. "Exploring Cultural and Religious Effects on HPV Vaccination Decision Making Using a Web-Based Decision Aid: A Quasi-experimental Study," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 44(4), pages 426-436, May.
    5. Sara Vannelli & Filippo Visintin & Clio Dosi & Laura Fiorini & Erika Rovini & Filippo Cavallo, 2024. "A Framework for the Human-Centered Design of Service Processes Enabled by Medical Devices: A Case Study of Wearable Devices for Parkinson’s Disease," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 21(10), pages 1-28, October.

    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:41:y:2021:i:7:p:736-754. 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: 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.