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.
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.
Authors: S Molenaar; M A Sprangers; F C Postma-Schuit; E J Rutgers; J Noorlander; J Hendriks; H C de Haes Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2000 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Andrew D M Kennedy; Mark J Sculpher; Angela Coulter; Nuala Dwyer; Margaret Rees; Keith R Abrams; Susan Horsley; Deborah Cowley; Christine Kidson; Catherine Kirwin; Caroline Naish; Gordon Stirrat Journal: JAMA Date: 2002-12-04 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: David J Heaney; Jeremy J Walker; John G R Howie; Margaret Maxwell; George K Freeman; Peter N E Berrey; Tom G Jones; Morag C Stern; Stephen M Campbell Journal: Fam Pract Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 2.267
Authors: A M O'Connor; D Stacey; V Entwistle; H Llewellyn-Thomas; D Rovner; M Holmes-Rovner; V Tait; J Tetroe; V Fiset; M Barry; J Jones Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2003
Authors: Sofia de Achaval; Liana Fraenkel; Robert J Volk; Vanessa Cox; Maria E Suarez-Almazor Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: France Légaré; Ian D Graham; Annette C O'Connor; Michèle Aubin; Lucie Baillargeon; Yvan Leduc; Jean Maziade Journal: Health Expect Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 3.377