Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process.
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, p...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
2006
|
| _version_ | 1826268832660979712 |
|---|---|
| author | Elwyn, G O'Connor, A Stacey, D Volk, R Edwards, A Coulter, A Thomson, R Barratt, A Barry, M Bernstein, S Butow, P Clarke, A Entwistle, V Feldman-Stewart, D Holmes-Rovner, M Llewellyn-Thomas, H Moumjid, N Mulley, A Ruland, C Sepucha, K Sykes, A Whelan, T |
| author_facet | Elwyn, G O'Connor, A Stacey, D Volk, R Edwards, A Coulter, A Thomson, R Barratt, A Barry, M Bernstein, S Butow, P Clarke, A Entwistle, V Feldman-Stewart, D Holmes-Rovner, M Llewellyn-Thomas, H Moumjid, N Mulley, A Ruland, C Sepucha, K Sykes, A Whelan, T |
| author_sort | Elwyn, G |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | 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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-06T21:15:39Z |
| format | Journal article |
| id | oxford-uuid:3fb6bb68-be41-45bd-9ee6-6be038552b57 |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-06T21:15:39Z |
| publishDate | 2006 |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:3fb6bb68-be41-45bd-9ee6-6be038552b572022-03-26T14:33:39ZDeveloping a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process.Journal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:3fb6bb68-be41-45bd-9ee6-6be038552b57EnglishSymplectic Elements at Oxford2006Elwyn, GO'Connor, AStacey, DVolk, REdwards, ACoulter, AThomson, RBarratt, ABarry, MBernstein, SButow, PClarke, AEntwistle, VFeldman-Stewart, DHolmes-Rovner, MLlewellyn-Thomas, HMoumjid, NMulley, ARuland, CSepucha, KSykes, AWhelan, T 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. |
| spellingShingle | Elwyn, G O'Connor, A Stacey, D Volk, R Edwards, A Coulter, A Thomson, R Barratt, A Barry, M Bernstein, S Butow, P Clarke, A Entwistle, V Feldman-Stewart, D Holmes-Rovner, M Llewellyn-Thomas, H Moumjid, N Mulley, A Ruland, C Sepucha, K Sykes, A Whelan, T Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. |
| title | Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. |
| title_full | Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. |
| title_fullStr | Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. |
| title_full_unstemmed | Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. |
| title_short | Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. |
| title_sort | developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids online international delphi consensus process |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT elwyng developingaqualitycriteriaframeworkforpatientdecisionaidsonlineinternationaldelphiconsensusprocess AT oconnora developingaqualitycriteriaframeworkforpatientdecisionaidsonlineinternationaldelphiconsensusprocess AT staceyd developingaqualitycriteriaframeworkforpatientdecisionaidsonlineinternationaldelphiconsensusprocess AT volkr developingaqualitycriteriaframeworkforpatientdecisionaidsonlineinternationaldelphiconsensusprocess AT edwardsa developingaqualitycriteriaframeworkforpatientdecisionaidsonlineinternationaldelphiconsensusprocess AT coultera developingaqualitycriteriaframeworkforpatientdecisionaidsonlineinternationaldelphiconsensusprocess AT thomsonr developingaqualitycriteriaframeworkforpatientdecisionaidsonlineinternationaldelphiconsensusprocess AT barratta developingaqualitycriteriaframeworkforpatientdecisionaidsonlineinternationaldelphiconsensusprocess AT barrym developingaqualitycriteriaframeworkforpatientdecisionaidsonlineinternationaldelphiconsensusprocess AT bernsteins developingaqualitycriteriaframeworkforpatientdecisionaidsonlineinternationaldelphiconsensusprocess AT butowp developingaqualitycriteriaframeworkforpatientdecisionaidsonlineinternationaldelphiconsensusprocess AT clarkea developingaqualitycriteriaframeworkforpatientdecisionaidsonlineinternationaldelphiconsensusprocess AT entwistlev developingaqualitycriteriaframeworkforpatientdecisionaidsonlineinternationaldelphiconsensusprocess AT feldmanstewartd developingaqualitycriteriaframeworkforpatientdecisionaidsonlineinternationaldelphiconsensusprocess AT holmesrovnerm developingaqualitycriteriaframeworkforpatientdecisionaidsonlineinternationaldelphiconsensusprocess AT llewellynthomash developingaqualitycriteriaframeworkforpatientdecisionaidsonlineinternationaldelphiconsensusprocess AT moumjidn developingaqualitycriteriaframeworkforpatientdecisionaidsonlineinternationaldelphiconsensusprocess AT mulleya developingaqualitycriteriaframeworkforpatientdecisionaidsonlineinternationaldelphiconsensusprocess AT rulandc developingaqualitycriteriaframeworkforpatientdecisionaidsonlineinternationaldelphiconsensusprocess AT sepuchak developingaqualitycriteriaframeworkforpatientdecisionaidsonlineinternationaldelphiconsensusprocess AT sykesa developingaqualitycriteriaframeworkforpatientdecisionaidsonlineinternationaldelphiconsensusprocess AT whelant developingaqualitycriteriaframeworkforpatientdecisionaidsonlineinternationaldelphiconsensusprocess |