Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Elwyn G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC1553508 | biostudies-literature | 2006 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Elwyn Glyn G O'Connor Annette A Stacey Dawn D Volk Robert R Edwards Adrian A Coulter Angela A Thomson Richard R Barratt Alexandra A Barry Michael M Bernstein Steven S Butow Phyllis P Clarke Aileen A Entwistle Vikki V Feldman-Stewart Deb D Holmes-Rovner Margaret M Llewellyn-Thomas Hilary H Moumjid Nora N Mulley Al A Ruland Cornelia C Sepucha Karen K Sykes Alan A Whelan Tim T

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20060814 7565

<h4>Objective</h4>To develop a set of quality criteria for patient decision support technologies (decision aids).<h4>Design and setting</h4>Two stage web based Delphi process using online rating process to enable international collaboration.<h4>Participants</h4>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 r ...[more]

PMID: 16908462

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFear of cancer recurrence (FCR) is common amongst cancer survivors. There is rapidly growing research interest in FCR but a need to prioritize research to address the most pressing clinical issues and reduce duplication and fragmentation of effort. This study aimed to establish international consensus among clinical and academic FCR experts regarding priorities for FCR research.MethodsMembers of the International Psycho-oncology Society (IPOS) Fear of Cancer Recurrence Special Interest Group (FORwards) were invited to participate in an online Delphi study. Research domains identified in Round 1 were presented and discussed at a focus group (Round 2) to consolidate the domains and items prior to presentation in further survey rounds (Round 3) aimed at gaining consensus on research priorities of international significance.ResultsThirty four research items were identified in Round 1 and 33 of the items were consolidated into six overarching themes through a focus group discussion with FCR experts. The 33 research items were presented in subsequent rounds of the delphi technique. Twenty one participants contributed to delphi round 1, 16 in round 2, and 25 and 29 participants for subsequent delphi rounds. Consensus was reached for 27 items in round 3.1. A further four research items were identified by panelists and included in round 3.2. After round 3.2, 35 individual research items were ratified by the panelists. Given the high levels of consensus and stability between rounds, no further rounds were conducted. Overall intervention research was considered the most important focus for FCR research. Panelists identified models of care that facilitate greater access to FCR treatment and evaluation of the effectiveness of FCR interventions in real world settings as the two research items of highest priority. Defining the mechanisms of action and active components across FCR/P interventions was the third highest priority identified.ConclusionThe findings of this study outline a research agenda for international FCR research. Intervention research to identify models of care that increase access to treatment are based on a flexible approach based on symptom severity and can be delivered within routine clinical care were identified as research areas to prioritize. Greater understanding of the active components and mechanisms of action of existing FCR interventions will facilitate increased tailoring of interventions to meet patient need.

Project description:ObjectivesThis study aimed to achieve an expert consensus on how to define and group footwear interventions for children, with a further focus on the design characteristics and prescription of off-the-shelf stability footwear for children with mobility impairment.SettingA group of multinational professionals, from clinicians to those involved in the footwear industry, were recruited to ensure a spectrum of opinions.ParticipantsThirty panellists were contacted, of which 24 consented to participate and six withdrew before round 1, a further two withdrew after round 1. Sixteen panellists completed the consensus exercise.Primary and secondary outcome measuresA Delphi consensus method was employed with round 1 split into three sections: (1) terms and definitions, (2) specifics of off-the-shelf stability footwear design and (3) criteria for clinical prescription of off-the-shelf stability footwear. The panel was asked to rate their level of agreement with statements and to provide further insights through open-ended questions. The opinions of the experts were analysed to assess consensus set at 75% agreement or to modify or form new statements presented through the subsequent two rounds.ResultsTherapeutic footwear was the agreed term to represent children's footwear interventions, with grouping and subgrouping of therapeutic footwear being dependent on their intended clinical outcomes (accommodative, corrective or functional). Both the heel counter and topline as well as the stiffness and width of the sole were identified as potentially influencing mediolateral stability in children's gait. A consensus was achieved in the prescription criteria and outcome measures for off-the-shelf stability therapeutic footwear for cerebral palsy, mobile symptomatic pes planus, Duchenne muscular dystrophy, spina bifida and Down's syndrome.ConclusionsThrough a structured synthesis of expert opinion, this study has established a standardisation of terminology and groupings along with prescription criteria for the first time. Reported findings have implications for communication between stakeholders, evidence-based clinical intervention and standardised outcome measures to assess effectiveness.

Project description:BackgroundThis study presents a framework for determining the allocation and distribution of the limited amount of vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).MethodsAfter analyzing the pandemic strategies of the major organizations and countries and with a literature review conducted by a core panel, a modified Delphi survey was administered to 13 experts in the fields of vaccination, infectious disease, and public health in the Republic of Korea. The following topics were discussed: 1) identifying the objectives of the vaccination strategy, 2) identifying allocation criteria, and 3) establishing a step-by-step vaccination framework and prioritization strategy based on the allocation criteria. Two rounds of surveys were conducted for each topic, with a structured questionnaire provided via e-mail in the first round. After analyzing the responses, a meeting with the experts was held to obtain consensus on how to prioritize the population groups.ResultsThe first objective of the vaccination strategy was maintenance of the integrity of the healthcare system and critical infrastructure, followed by reduction of morbidity and mortality and reduction of community transmission. In the initial phase, older adult residents in care homes, high-risk health and social care workers, and personal support workers who work in direct contact with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients would be prioritized. Expansion of vaccine supply would allow immunization of older adults not included in phase 1, followed by healthcare workers not previously included and individuals with comorbidities. Further widespread vaccine supply would ensure availability to the extended adult age groups (50-64 years old), critical workers outside the health sector, residents who cannot socially distance, and, eventually, the remaining populations.ConclusionThis survey provides the much needed insight into the decision-making process for vaccine allocation at the national level. However, flexibility in adapting to strategies will be essential, as new information is constantly emerging.

Project description:ObjectivesTo develop a consensus statement to provide advice on designing, implementing and evaluating crowdsourcing challenge contests in public health and medical contexts.DesignModified Delphi using three rounds of survey questionnaires and one consensus workshop.SettingUganda for face-to-face consensus activities, global for online survey questionnaires.ParticipantsA multidisciplinary expert panel was convened at a consensus-development conference in Uganda and included 21 researchers with experience leading challenge contests, five public health sector workers, and nine Ugandan end users. An online survey was sent to 140 corresponding authors of previously published articles that had used crowdsourcing methods.ResultsA subgroup of expert panel members developed the initial statement and survey. We received responses from 120 (85.7%) survey participants, which were presented at an in-person workshop of all 21 panel members. Panelists discussed each of the sections, revised the statement, and participated in a second round of the survey questionnaire. Based on this second survey round, we held detailed discussions of each subsection with workshop participants and further revised the consensus statement. We then conducted the third round of the questionnaire among the 21 expert panelists and used the results to finalize the statement. This iterative process resulted in 23 final statement items, all with greater than 80% consensus. Statement items are organised into the seven stages of a challenge contest, including the following: considering the appropriateness, organising a community steering committee, promoting the contest, assessing contributions, recognising contributors, sharing ideas and evaluating the contest (COPARSE).ConclusionsThere is high agreement among crowdsourcing experts and stakeholders on the design and implementation of crowdsourcing challenge contests. The COPARSE consensus statement can be used to organise crowdsourcing challenge contests, improve the rigour and reproducibility of crowdsourcing research and enable large-scale collaboration.

Dataset Information

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

Objective

Design and setting

Participants

Main outcome measure

Results

Conclusions

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets