Karen R Sepucha1, Daniel D Matlock2, Celia E Wills3, Mary Ropka4, Natalie Joseph-Williams5, Dawn Stacey6, ChirkJenn Ng7, Carrie Levin8, Joanne Lally9, Cornelia M Borkhoff10, Richard Thomson9. 1. General Medicine Division, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA (KS) 2. University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO (DDM)The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH (CEW) 3. The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH (CEW) 4. Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA (MR) 5. Cochrane Institute of Primary Care and Public Health, Cardiff University, CARDIFF, UK (NJ) 6. University of Ottawa and Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada (DS) 7. Department of Primary Care Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaya (CN) 8. Informed Medical Decisions Foundation, Boston, MA (CL) 9. Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK (JL, RT) 10. University of Toronto and The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada (CMB).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This review systematically appraises the quality of reporting of measures used in trials to evaluate the effectiveness of patient decision aids (PtDAs) and presents recommendations for minimum reporting standards. METHODS: We reviewed measures of decision quality and decision process in 86 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from the 2011 Cochrane Collaboration systematic review of PtDAs. Data on development of the measures, reliability, validity, responsiveness, precision, interpretability, feasibility, and acceptability were independently abstracted by 2 reviewers. RESULTS: Information from 178 instances of use of measures was abstracted. Very few studies reported data on the performance of measures, with reliability (21%) and validity (16%) being the most common. Studies using new measures were less likely to include information about their psychometric performance. The review was limited to reporting of measures in studies included in the Cochrane review and did not consult prior publications. CONCLUSIONS: Very little is reported about the development or performance of measures used to evaluate the effectiveness of PtDAs in published trials. Minimum reporting standards are proposed to enable authors to prepare study reports, editors and reviewers to evaluate submitted papers, and readers to appraise published studies.
BACKGROUND: This review systematically appraises the quality of reporting of measures used in trials to evaluate the effectiveness of patient decision aids (PtDAs) and presents recommendations for minimum reporting standards. METHODS: We reviewed measures of decision quality and decision process in 86 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from the 2011 Cochrane Collaboration systematic review of PtDAs. Data on development of the measures, reliability, validity, responsiveness, precision, interpretability, feasibility, and acceptability were independently abstracted by 2 reviewers. RESULTS: Information from 178 instances of use of measures was abstracted. Very few studies reported data on the performance of measures, with reliability (21%) and validity (16%) being the most common. Studies using new measures were less likely to include information about their psychometric performance. The review was limited to reporting of measures in studies included in the Cochrane review and did not consult prior publications. CONCLUSIONS: Very little is reported about the development or performance of measures used to evaluate the effectiveness of PtDAs in published trials. Minimum reporting standards are proposed to enable authors to prepare study reports, editors and reviewers to evaluate submitted papers, and readers to appraise published studies.
Authors: Melanie Calvert; Jane Blazeby; Douglas G Altman; Dennis A Revicki; David Moher; Michael D Brundage Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-02-27 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Dawn Stacey; Carol L Bennett; Michael J Barry; Nananda F Col; Karen B Eden; Margaret Holmes-Rovner; Hilary Llewellyn-Thomas; Anne Lyddiatt; France Légaré; Richard Thomson Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2011-10-05
Authors: Richard P Moser; Bradford W Hesse; Abdul R Shaikh; Paul Courtney; Glen Morgan; Erik Augustson; Sarah Kobrin; Kerry Y Levin; Cynthia Helba; David Garner; Marsha Dunn; Kisha Coa Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Karen R Sepucha; Cornelia M Borkhoff; Joanne Lally; Carrie A Levin; Daniel D Matlock; Chirk Jenn Ng; Mary E Ropka; Dawn Stacey; Natalie Joseph-Williams; Celia E Wills; Richard Thomson Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2013-11-29 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Jennifer Blumenthal-Barby; Douglas J Opel; Neal W Dickert; Daniel B Kramer; Brownsyne Tucker Edmonds; Keren Ladin; Monica E Peek; Jeff Peppercorn; Jon Tilburt Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2019-11 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Erica S Breslau; Sherri Sheinfeld Gorin; Heather M Edwards; Mara A Schonberg; Nicole Saiontz; Louise C Walter Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2016-03-03 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Aubri S Hoffman; Karen R Sepucha; Purva Abhyankar; Stacey Sheridan; Hilary Bekker; Annie LeBlanc; Carrie Levin; Mary Ropka; Victoria Shaffer; Dawn Stacey; Peep Stalmeier; Ha Vo; Celia Wills; Richard Thomson Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2018-02-21 Impact factor: 7.418
Authors: Aoife De Brún; Darren Flynn; Laura Ternent; Christopher I Price; Helen Rodgers; Gary A Ford; Matthew Rudd; Emily Lancsar; Stephen Simpson; John Teah; Richard G Thomson Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2018-06-22 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Karen R Sepucha; Purva Abhyankar; Aubri S Hoffman; Hilary L Bekker; Annie LeBlanc; Carrie A Levin; Mary Ropka; Victoria A Shaffer; Stacey L Sheridan; Dawn Stacey; Peep Stalmeier; Ha Vo; Celia E Wills; Richard Thomson Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2017-12-21 Impact factor: 7.418
Authors: Eva Christalle; Stefan Zeh; Pola Hahlweg; Levente Kriston; Martin Härter; Isabelle Scholl Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-10-21 Impact factor: 2.692