IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v41y2021i7p755-767.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Basing Information on Comprehensive, Critically Appraised, and Up-to-Date Syntheses of the Scientific Evidence: An Update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards

Author

Listed:
  • Tammy C. Hoffmann

    (Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia)

  • Mina Bakhit

    (Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia)

  • Marie-Anne Durand

    (Universite Toulouse III Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France
    The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Lebanon, NH, USA)

  • Lilisbeth Perestelo-Pérez

    (Evaluation Unit, Canary Islands Health Service, REDISSEC, Tenerife, Spain)

  • Catherine Saunders

    (The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Lebanon, NH, USA
    Department of Psychiatry, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Centre, Lebanon NH, USA)

  • Juan P. Brito

    (Knowledge Evaluation and Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Minnesota, Rochester, MN, USA)

Abstract

Background Patients and clinicians expect the information in patient decision aids to be based on the best available research evidence. The objectives of this International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) review were to 1) check the currency of, and where needed, update evidence for the domain of “basing the information in decision aids on comprehensive, critically appraised, and up-to-date syntheses of the evidence†; 2) analyze the evidence characteristics of decision aids; and 3) propose updates to relevant IPDAS criteria. Methods We searched MEDLINE and PubMed to inform updates of this domain’s definitions, justifications, and components. We also searched 5 sources to identify all publicly available decision aids ( N = 471). Two assessors independently extracted each aid’s evidence characteristics. Results Minor updates to the definitions and theoretical justifications of this IPDAS domain are provided and changes to relevant IPDAS criteria proposed. Nearly all aids (97%) provided a year of creation/update, but most (81%) did not report an explicit update or expiration policy. No scientific references were cited in 33% of aids. Of the 314 that cited at least 1 reference, 39% cited at least 1 guideline, 44% cited at least 1 systematic review, and 23% cited at least 1 randomized trial. In 35%, it was unclear what statement in the aid the citations referred to. Only 14% reported any of the processes used to find and decide on evidence inclusion. Only 14% reported the evidence quality. Many emerging issues and future research areas were identified. Conclusions Although many emerging issues need to be addressed, this IPDAS domain is validated and criteria refined. High-quality patient decision aids should be based on comprehensive and up-to-date syntheses of critically appraised evidence.

Suggested Citation

  • Tammy C. Hoffmann & Mina Bakhit & Marie-Anne Durand & Lilisbeth Perestelo-Pérez & Catherine Saunders & Juan P. Brito, 2021. "Basing Information on Comprehensive, Critically Appraised, and Up-to-Date Syntheses of the Scientific Evidence: An Update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 755-767, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:41:y:2021:i:7:p:755-767
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X21996622
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X21996622
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X21996622?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. Paul K. J. Han & Christine Lary & Adam Black & Caitlin Gutheil & Hayley Mandeville & Jason Yahwak & Mayuko Fukunaga, 2019. "Effects of Personalized Risk Information on Patients Referred for Lung Cancer Screening with Low-Dose CT," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(8), pages 950-961, November.
    2. Nick Bansback & Mark Harrison & Carlo Marra, 2016. "Does Introducing Imprecision around Probabilities for Benefit and Harm Influence the Way People Value Treatments?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(4), pages 490-502, May.
    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. Holly O. Witteman & Ruth Ndjaboue & Gratianne Vaisson & Selma Chipenda Dansokho & Bob Arnold & John F. P. Bridges & Sandrine Comeau & Angela Fagerlin & Teresa Gavaruzzi & Melina Marcoux & Arwen Pieter, 2021. "Clarifying Values: An Updated and Expanded Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 801-820, October.
    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. Lyndal J. Trevena & Carissa Bonner & Yasmina Okan & Ellen Peters & Wolfgang Gaissmaier & Paul K. J. Han & Elissa Ozanne & Danielle Timmermans & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2021. "Current Challenges When Using Numbers in Patient Decision Aids: Advanced Concepts," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 834-847, October.
    2. Carissa Bonner & Lyndal J. Trevena & Wolfgang Gaissmaier & Paul K. J. Han & Yasmina Okan & Elissa Ozanne & Ellen Peters & Daniëlle Timmermans & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2021. "Current Best Practice for Presenting Probabilities in Patient Decision Aids: Fundamental Principles," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 821-833, October.
    3. Erika A. Waters & Jennifer M. Taber & Nicole Ackermann & Julia Maki & Amy M. McQueen & Laura D. Scherer, 2023. "Testing Explanations for Skepticism of Personalized Risk Information," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(4), pages 430-444, May.

    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:755-767. 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.