Systematic Development of Patient Decision Aids: An Update from the IPDAS Collaboration

Holly O. Witteman, Kristin G. Maki, Gratianne Vaisson, Jeanette Finderup, Krystina B. Lewis, Karina Dahl Steffensen, Caroline Beaudoin, Sandrine Comeau and Robert J. Volk
Additional contact information
Holly O. Witteman: Department of Family and Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Laval University, Quebec City, Canada
Kristin G. Maki: Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
Gratianne Vaisson: Department of Family and Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Laval University, Quebec City, Québec, Canada
Jeanette Finderup: Research Centre for Patient Involvement & Department of Renal Medicine, Aarhus University & Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
Krystina B. Lewis: School of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
Karina Dahl Steffensen: Center for Shared Decision Making/Department of Oncology, Lillebaelt University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Vejle, Denmark
Caroline Beaudoin: Department of Family and Emergency Medicine, Laval University, Quebec, Canada
Sandrine Comeau: Department of Family and Emergency Medicine, Laval University, Quebec, Canada
Robert J. Volk: Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA

Medical Decision Making, 2021, vol. 41, issue 7, 736-754

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

Keywords: decision making; values clarification; shared decision making; preference elicitation (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2021
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2) Track citations by RSS feed

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X211014163 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:medema:v:41:y:2021:i:7:p:736-754

DOI: 10.1177/0272989X211014163

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Medical Decision Making
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().