Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process

被引:1309
作者
Elwyn, Glyn [1 ]
O'Connor, Annette [2 ,3 ]
Stacey, Dawn [2 ]
Volk, Robert [4 ]
Edwards, Adrian [1 ]
Coulter, Angela [5 ]
Thomson, Richard [6 ]
Barrat, Alexandra [6 ]
Butow, Phyllis [7 ]
Barry, Michael [8 ]
Mulley, Albert G. [8 ]
Sepucha, Karen [8 ]
Bernstein, Steven [9 ]
Clarke, Aileen [10 ]
Entwistle, Vikki [11 ]
Feldman-Stewart, Deb [12 ]
Holmes-Rovner, Margaret [13 ]
Llewellyn-Thomas, Hilary [14 ]
Moumjid, Nora [15 ]
Ruland, Cornelia [16 ]
Sykes, Alan [17 ]
Whelan, Tim [18 ]
机构
[1] Cardiff Univ, Ctr Hlth Sci Res, Dept Gen Practice, Cardiff CF14 4YS, Wales
[2] Univ Ottawa, Ottawa, ON K1Y 4E9, Canada
[3] Ottawa Hlth Res Inst, Clin Epidemiol Program, Ottawa, ON K1Y 4E9, Canada
[4] Baylor Coll Med, Dept Family & Community Med, Houston, TX 77098 USA
[5] Picker Inst Europe, Oxford OX1 1RX, England
[6] Univ Sydney, Sch Publ Hlth, Screening & Testing Program, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
[7] Univ Sydney, Sch Psychol, Med Psychol Res Unit, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
[8] Harvard Med Sch, Massachusetts Gen Hosp, Boston, MA 02114 USA
[9] VA Ann Arbor Healthcare Syst, HS R&D Ctr Excellence, Ann Arbor, MI USA
[10] Publ Hlth Resource Unit, Oxford OX4 2GX, England
[11] Univ Dundee, Social Dimens Hlth Inst, Dundee DD1 4HJ, Scotland
[12] Queens Univ, Div Canc Care & Epidemiol, Canc Res Inst, Kingstown, ON, Canada
[13] Michigan State Univ, Ctr Eth, E Lansing, MI 48824 USA
[14] Dartmouth Med Sch, Dept Community & Family Med, Ctr Evaluat Clin Sci, Hanover, NH USA
[15] GRESAC, Ctr Leon Berard, F-69008 Lyon, France
[16] Rikshosp Radiumhosp, Oslo, Norway
[17] Acadvent Ltd, Swansea, Wales
[18] McMaster Univ, Dept Med, Hamilton, ON, Canada
来源
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL | 2006年 / 333卷 / 7565期
关键词
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIALS; GENERAL-PRACTICE; HEALTH INFORMATION; INDICATORS; INSTRUMENT; KNOWLEDGE; CHOICES;
D O I
10.1136/bmj.38926.629329.AE
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
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 I 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 tip 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.
引用
收藏
页码:417 / 419
页数:7
相关论文
共 33 条
[1]  
Altman DG, 1996, BRIT MED J, V313, P570
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2004, Health Aff (Millwood)
[3]  
[Anonymous], HLTH AFF MILLWOOD
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2004, HLTH AFF MILLWOOD S
[5]   Use of decision aids to support informed choices about screening [J].
Barratt, A ;
Trevena, L ;
Davey, HM ;
McCaffery, K .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2004, 329 (7464) :507-510
[6]   APPROPRIATENESS - THE NEXT FRONTIER [J].
BROOK, RH .
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1994, 308 (6923) :218-219
[7]   Prescribing indicators for UK general practice: Delphi consultation study [J].
Campbell, SM ;
Cantrill, JA ;
Roberts, D .
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2000, 321 (7258) :425-428B
[8]   Treatment decision aids: conceptual issues and future directions [J].
Charles, C ;
Gafni, A ;
Whelan, T ;
O'Brien, MA .
HEALTH EXPECTATIONS, 2005, 8 (02) :114-125
[9]   DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices [J].
Charnock, D ;
Shepperd, S ;
Needham, G ;
Gann, R .
JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY AND COMMUNITY HEALTH, 1999, 53 (02) :105-111
[10]  
Cluzeau F, 2003, QUAL SAF HEALTH CARE, V12, P18