» Articles » PMID: 16908462

Developing a Quality Criteria Framework for Patient Decision Aids: Online International Delphi Consensus Process

Abstract

Objective: To develop a set of quality criteria for patient decision support technologies (decision aids).

Design And Setting: Two stage web based Delphi process using online rating process to enable international collaboration.

Participants: Individuals from four stakeholder groups (researchers, practitioners, patients, policy makers) representing 14 countries reviewed evidence summaries and rated the importance of 80 criteria in 12 quality domains on a 1 to 9 scale. Second round participants received feedback from the first round and repeated their assessment of the 80 criteria plus three new ones.

Main Outcome Measure: Aggregate ratings for each criterion calculated using medians weighted to compensate for different numbers in stakeholder groups; criteria rated between 7 and 9 were retained.

Results: 212 nominated people were invited to participate. Of those invited, 122 participated in the first round (77 researchers, 21 patients, 10 practitioners, 14 policy makers); 104/122 (85%) participated in the second round. 74 of 83 criteria were retained in the following domains: systematic development process (9/9 criteria); providing information about options (13/13); presenting probabilities (11/13); clarifying and expressing values (3/3); using patient stories (2/5); guiding/coaching (3/5); disclosing conflicts of interest (5/5); providing internet access (6/6); balanced presentation of options (3/3); using plain language (4/6); basing information on up to date evidence (7/7); and establishing effectiveness (8/8).

Conclusions: Criteria were given the highest ratings where evidence existed, and these were retained. Gaps in research were highlighted. Developers, users, and purchasers of patient decision aids now have a checklist for appraising quality. An instrument for measuring quality of decision aids is being developed.

Citing Articles

Development of a generic decision guide for patients in oncology: a qualitative interview study.

Schilling L, Kaden J, Ban I, Berger-Hoger B BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2025; 25(1):125.

PMID: 40065302 PMC: 11895154. DOI: 10.1186/s12911-025-02960-6.


Family Involvement During Patient Hospitalisation-Developing and Testing a Clinical Decision Aid.

Christensen L, Andersen M, Brink A, Hoffmann E Scand J Caring Sci. 2025; 39(1):e70017.

PMID: 40059501 PMC: 11891467. DOI: 10.1111/scs.70017.


Shared Decision-Making Tools Implemented in the Electronic Health Record: Scoping Review.

Pierce J, Weir C, Taft T, Richards Ii W, McFarland M, Kawamoto K J Med Internet Res. 2025; 27:e59956.

PMID: 39983125 PMC: 11890150. DOI: 10.2196/59956.


Informed Consent in Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery: Patients' Perspective of a Tertiary Service Process.

Verma V, Lucena H, Pandeva I, Pradhan A Int Urogynecol J. 2025; .

PMID: 39888384 DOI: 10.1007/s00192-025-06055-8.


Impact of Online Interactive Decision Tools on Women's Decision-Making Regarding Breast Cancer Screening: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Villain P, Downham L, Le Bonniec A, Bauquier C, Mandrik O, Nadarzynski T J Med Internet Res. 2025; 27:e65974.

PMID: 39879616 PMC: 11822326. DOI: 10.2196/65974.


References
1.
Murphy M, Black N, Lamping D, McKEE C, Sanderson C, Askham J . Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development. Health Technol Assess. 1998; 2(3):i-iv, 1-88. View

2.
Schunemann H, Best D, Vist G, Oxman A . Letters, numbers, symbols and words: how to communicate grades of evidence and recommendations. CMAJ. 2003; 169(7):677-80. PMC: 202287. View

3.
Brook R . Appropriateness: the next frontier. BMJ. 1994; 308(6923):218-9. PMC: 2539340. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.308.6923.218. View

4.
OConnor A, Stacey D, Entwistle V, Llewellyn-Thomas H, ROVNER D, Holmes-Rovner M . Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003; (2):CD001431. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001431. View

5.
Moher D, Cook D, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup D . Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet. 1999; 354(9193):1896-900. DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(99)04149-5. View