IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v9y2016i6d10.1007_s40271-016-0177-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Translating Evidence to Facilitate Shared Decision Making: Development and Usability of a Consult Decision Aid Prototype

Author

Listed:
  • Dawn Stacey

    (University of Ottawa and Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute)

  • France Légaré

    (Centre de recherche du CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Hôpital St-François d’Assise)

  • Anne Lyddiatt
  • Anik M. C. Giguere

    (Laval University)

  • Manosila Yoganathan

    (Bruyère Research Institute)

  • Anton Saarimaki

    (Ottawa Hospital Research Institute)

  • Jordi Pardo Pardo

    (Centre for Practice–Changing Research, General Campus, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute)

  • Tamara Rader

    (Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health)

  • Peter Tugwell

    (University of Ottawa and Clinical Epidemiology Program)

Abstract

Aim The purpose of this study was to translate evidence from Cochrane Reviews into a format that can be used to facilitate shared decision making during the consultation, namely patient decision aids. Methods A systematic development process (a) established a stakeholder committee; (b) developed a prototype according to the International Patient Decision Aid Standards; (c) applied the prototype to a Cochrane Review and used an interview-guided survey to evaluate acceptability/usability; (d) created 12 consult decision aids; and (e) used a Delphi process to reach consensus on considerations for creating a consult decision aid. Results The 1-page prototype includes (a) a title specifying the decision; (b) information on the health condition, options, benefits/harms with probabilities; (c) an explicit values clarification exercise; and (d) questions to screen for decisional conflict. Hyperlinks provide additional information on definitions, probabilities presented graphically, and references. Fourteen Cochrane Consumer Network members and Cochrane Editorial Unit staff participated. Thirteen reported that it would help patient/clinician discussions and were willing to use and/or recommend it. Seven indicated the right amount of information, six not enough, and one too much. Changes to the prototype were more links to definitions, more white space, and details on GRADE evidence ratings. Creating 12 consult decision aids took about 4 h each. We identified ten considerations when selecting Cochrane Reviews for creating consult decision aids. Conclusions Using a systematic process, we developed a consult decision aid prototype to be populated with evidence from Cochrane Reviews. It was acceptable and easy to apply. Future studies will evaluate implementation of consult decision aids.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:9:y:2016:i:6:d:10.1007_s40271-016-0177-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-016-0177-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-016-0177-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40271-016-0177-9?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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. 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.

    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:spr:patien:v:9:y:2016:i:6:d:10.1007_s40271-016-0177-9. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.