Holly O Witteman1,2,3, Kristin G Maki4, Gratianne Vaisson5, Jeanette Finderup6, Krystina B Lewis7,8, Karina Dahl Steffensen9,10, Caroline Beaudoin11, Sandrine Comeau11, Robert J Volk4. 1. Department of Family and Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Laval University, Quebec City, Canada. 2. VITAM Research Centre, Quebec City, Canada. 3. CHU de Québec Research Centre, Quebec City, Canada. 4. Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. 5. Department of Family and Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Laval University, Quebec City, Québec, Canada. 6. Research Centre for Patient Involvement & Department of Renal Medicine, Aarhus University & Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. 7. School of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 8. University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 9. Center for Shared Decision Making/Department of Oncology, Lillebaelt University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Vejle, Denmark. 10. Institute of Regional Health Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, Vejle, Denmark. 11. Department of Family and Emergency Medicine, Laval University, Quebec, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The 2013 update of the evidence informing the quality dimensions behind the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) offered a model process for developers of patient decision aids. OBJECTIVE: To summarize and update the evidence used to inform the systematic development of patient decision aids from the IPDAS Collaboration. METHODS: To provide further details about design and development methods, we summarized findings from a subgroup (n = 283 patient decision aid projects) in a recent systematic review of user involvement by Vaisson et al. Using a new measure of user-centeredness (UCD-11), we then rated the degree of user-centeredness reported in 66 articles describing patient decision aid development and citing the 2013 IPDAS update on systematic development. We contacted the 66 articles' authors to request their self-reports of UCD-11 items. RESULTS: The 283 development processes varied substantially from minimal iteration cycles to more complex processes, with multiple iterations, needs assessments, and extensive involvement of end users. We summarized minimal, medium, and maximal processes from the data. Authors of 54 of 66 articles (82%) provided self-reported UCD-11 ratings. Self-reported scores were significantly higher than reviewer ratings (reviewers: mean [SD] = 6.45 [3.10]; authors: mean [SD] = 9.62 [1.16], P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Decision aid developers have embraced principles of user-centered design in the development of patient decision aids while also underreporting aspects of user involvement in publications about their tools. Templates may reduce the need for extensive development, and new approaches for rapid development of aids have been proposed when a more detailed approach is not feasible. We provide empirically derived benchmark processes and a reporting checklist to support developers in more fully describing their development processes.[Box: see text].
BACKGROUND: The 2013 update of the evidence informing the quality dimensions behind the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) offered a model process for developers of patient decision aids. OBJECTIVE: To summarize and update the evidence used to inform the systematic development of patient decision aids from the IPDAS Collaboration. METHODS: To provide further details about design and development methods, we summarized findings from a subgroup (n = 283 patient decision aid projects) in a recent systematic review of user involvement by Vaisson et al. Using a new measure of user-centeredness (UCD-11), we then rated the degree of user-centeredness reported in 66 articles describing patient decision aid development and citing the 2013 IPDAS update on systematic development. We contacted the 66 articles' authors to request their self-reports of UCD-11 items. RESULTS: The 283 development processes varied substantially from minimal iteration cycles to more complex processes, with multiple iterations, needs assessments, and extensive involvement of end users. We summarized minimal, medium, and maximal processes from the data. Authors of 54 of 66 articles (82%) provided self-reported UCD-11 ratings. Self-reported scores were significantly higher than reviewer ratings (reviewers: mean [SD] = 6.45 [3.10]; authors: mean [SD] = 9.62 [1.16], P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Decision aid developers have embraced principles of user-centered design in the development of patient decision aids while also underreporting aspects of user involvement in publications about their tools. Templates may reduce the need for extensive development, and new approaches for rapid development of aids have been proposed when a more detailed approach is not feasible. We provide empirically derived benchmark processes and a reporting checklist to support developers in more fully describing their development processes.[Box: see text].
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Belinda Jackson; Jake Begun; Kathleen Gray; Leonid Churilov; Danny Liew; Simon Knowles; Peter De Cruz Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2019-03-07 Impact factor: 8.171
Authors: Patricia Birch; S Adam; N Bansback; R R Coe; J Hicklin; A Lehman; K C Li; J M Friedman Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2016-05-23 Impact factor: 2.537
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: Patricia E Hershberger; Agatha M Gallo; Kirby Adlam; Alana D Steffen; Martha Driessnack; Harold D Grotevant; Susan C Klock; Lauri Pasch; Valerie Gruss Journal: J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs Date: 2022-07-31
Authors: Helle Sorensen von Essen; Frantz Rom Poulsen; Rikke Hedegaard Dahlrot; Karin Piil; Karina Dahl Steffensen Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-06-16 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Bryan C Wallace; Jacqueline Jones; Frederick A Masoudi; Carolyn T Nowels; Paul Varosy; Richard Thomson; Glyn Elwyn; Angela G Brega; Travis Vermilye; Christopher E Knoepke; Amneet Sandhu; Larry A Allen; Daniel D Matlock Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2021-10-09 Impact factor: 1.912
Authors: Diana Marinello; Federica Di Cianni; Alessandra Del Bianco; Irene Mattioli; Jurgen Sota; Luca Cantarini; Giacomo Emmi; Pietro Leccese; Giuseppe Lopalco; Marta Mosca; Angela Padula; Matteo Piga; Carlo Salvarani; Domenica Taruscio; Rosaria Talarico Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2021-12-13
Authors: Sandra A Hartasanchez; Ian G Hargraves; Jennifer E Clark; Derek Gravholt; Juan P Brito; Megan E Branda; Yvonne L Gomez; Vivek Nautiyal; Charanjit S Khurana; Randal J Thomas; Victor M Montori; Jennifer L Ridgeway Journal: Prev Med Rep Date: 2022-09-19