Marie-Anne Durand1, Jana Witt2, Natalie Joseph-Williams2, Robert G Newcombe2, Mary C Politi3, Stephanie Sivell4, Glyn Elwyn5. 1. Department of Psychology, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK; The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Dartmouth College, Hanover, USA. 2. Cochrane Institute of Primary Care & Public Health, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK. 3. Department of Surgery, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, USA. 4. Marie Curie Palliative Care Research Centre, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK. 5. The Dartmouth Center for Health Care Delivery Science and The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Dartmouth College, Hanover, USA. Electronic address: glynelwyn@gmail.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Patient decision support interventions are not currently subject to standardized quality control. The current study aims to assess the feasibility of applying a proposed set of minimum standards (previously developed as part of a possible certification process) to a selection of existing patient decision support interventions. METHODS: A convenience sample of interventions selected from those included in the 2009 Cochrane systematic review of patient decision aids was scored by trained raters using the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) instrument. Scores were then evaluated against the published proposed minimum standards. RESULTS: Twenty-five out of thirty included interventions met all qualifying criteria while only three met the proposed certification criteria. The changes required for an intervention to meet the proposed certification standards were relatively minor. There was considerable variation between raters' mean scores. CONCLUSIONS: Most interventions did not meet the certification criteria due to lack of information on modifiable items such as update policy and funding source. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Specifying minimum standards for patient decision support interventions is a feasible development. However, it remains unclear whether the minimum standards can be applied to interventions designed for use within clinical encounters and to those that target screening and diagnostic tests.
OBJECTIVE: Patient decision support interventions are not currently subject to standardized quality control. The current study aims to assess the feasibility of applying a proposed set of minimum standards (previously developed as part of a possible certification process) to a selection of existing patient decision support interventions. METHODS: A convenience sample of interventions selected from those included in the 2009 Cochrane systematic review of patient decision aids was scored by trained raters using the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) instrument. Scores were then evaluated against the published proposed minimum standards. RESULTS: Twenty-five out of thirty included interventions met all qualifying criteria while only three met the proposed certification criteria. The changes required for an intervention to meet the proposed certification standards were relatively minor. There was considerable variation between raters' mean scores. CONCLUSIONS: Most interventions did not meet the certification criteria due to lack of information on modifiable items such as update policy and funding source. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Specifying minimum standards for patient decision support interventions is a feasible development. However, it remains unclear whether the minimum standards can be applied to interventions designed for use within clinical encounters and to those that target screening and diagnostic tests.
Authors: Joseph D Shirk; Catherine M Crespi; Josemanuel D Saucedo; Sylvia Lambrechts; Ely Dahan; Robert Kaplan; Christopher Saigal Journal: Patient Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 3.883
Authors: G P Moore; B Lemyre; T Daboval; S Ding; S Dunn; S Akiki; N Barrowman; A L Shephard; M L Lawson Journal: J Perinatol Date: 2017-03-30 Impact factor: 2.521
Authors: Noel Engels; Gretchen N de Graav; Paul van der Nat; Marinus van den Dorpel; Anne M Stiggelbout; Willem Jan Bos Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-09-21 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Noel Engels; Paul B van der Nat; Jet W Ankersmid; Janine C M Prick; Ellen Parent; Regina The; Asako Takahashi; Hans A J Bart; Cornelia F van Uden-Kraan; Anne M Stiggelbout; Willem J W Bos; Marinus A van den Dorpel Journal: BMC Nephrol Date: 2022-07-06 Impact factor: 2.585
Authors: Julia Rozanova; Olga Morozova; Lyuba Azbel; Chethan Bachireddy; Jacob M Izenberg; Tetiana Kiriazova; Sergiy Dvoryak; Frederick L Altice Journal: J Urban Health Date: 2018-08 Impact factor: 3.671
Authors: Amanda M Willis; Sian K Smith; Bettina Meiser; Mandy L Ballinger; David M Thomas; Martin Tattersall; Mary-Anne Young Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2018-02-17 Impact factor: 2.537