Krystina B Lewis1, Brianne Wood2, Karen R Sepucha3, Richard G Thomson4, Dawn Stacey5. 1. School of Nursing, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada. 2. School of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada. 3. Division of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA. 4. Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK. 5. School of Nursing, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada; Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada. Electronic address: dstacey@uottawa.ca.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Variable reporting of patient decision aids (PDAs) in published articles raises uncertainty about whether the intervention meets the definition of a PDA. We appraised the quality of reporting of PDA characteristics in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: RCTs eligible for the Cochrane review of PDAs and published June 2012 to April 2015 were included. Quality of PDA reporting was appraised using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Instrument (v4.0). We descriptively synthesized and comparatively analysed qualifying and certification criteria reported in each publication against their presence in actual PDAs. RESULTS: Seventeen RCTs evaluating sixteen PDAs were included. Ten PDAs (58.8%) were reported using all qualifying criteria. Two (11.8%) were reported using all certification criteria. The median score for reporting qualifying criteria was 6 of 6 (range 4-6). The median score for reporting certification criteria was 2 of 10 (range 2-3) for screening and 1 of 6 (range 0-6) for treatment decisions. CONCLUSION: Reporting of PDAs in RCTs is suboptimal. Incomplete reporting poses challenges for clinicians and researchers needing to identify PDA content for clinical practice and/or future research. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Authors should report IPDASi (v4.0) criteria in published articles. Reporting guidelines for PDA evaluation studies are in development to improve reporting within the scientific literature.
OBJECTIVE: Variable reporting of patient decision aids (PDAs) in published articles raises uncertainty about whether the intervention meets the definition of a PDA. We appraised the quality of reporting of PDA characteristics in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: RCTs eligible for the Cochrane review of PDAs and published June 2012 to April 2015 were included. Quality of PDA reporting was appraised using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Instrument (v4.0). We descriptively synthesized and comparatively analysed qualifying and certification criteria reported in each publication against their presence in actual PDAs. RESULTS: Seventeen RCTs evaluating sixteen PDAs were included. Ten PDAs (58.8%) were reported using all qualifying criteria. Two (11.8%) were reported using all certification criteria. The median score for reporting qualifying criteria was 6 of 6 (range 4-6). The median score for reporting certification criteria was 2 of 10 (range 2-3) for screening and 1 of 6 (range 0-6) for treatment decisions. CONCLUSION: Reporting of PDAs in RCTs is suboptimal. Incomplete reporting poses challenges for clinicians and researchers needing to identify PDA content for clinical practice and/or future research. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Authors should report IPDASi (v4.0) criteria in published articles. Reporting guidelines for PDA evaluation studies are in development to improve reporting within the scientific literature.
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: Thomas H Wieringa; Rene Rodriguez-Gutierrez; Gabriela Spencer-Bonilla; Maartje de Wit; Oscar J Ponce; Manuel F Sanchez-Herrera; Nataly R Espinoza; Yaara Zisman-Ilani; Marleen Kunneman; Linda J Schoonmade; Victor M Montori; Frank J Snoek Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2019-05-20
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