Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process
Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process
复制标题
DOI：
10.1136/bmj.38926.629329.ae
复制
发表时间：
2006-08-26
影响因子：
105.7
通讯作者：
Whelan, Tim
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Elwyn, Glyn;O'Connor, Annette;Whelan, Tim
目的为患者决策支持技术(Decision Assistents)制定一套质量标准。设计和设置两个阶段的网络，基于Delphi过程，使用在线评级流程，以实现国际合作。来自14个国家的4个利益相关者群体(研究人员、从业者、患者和政策制定者)的参与者回顾了证据摘要，并对12个质量领域的80个标准的重要性进行了I到9的评分。第二轮参与者收到了第一轮的反馈，并重复了他们对80个标准加上3个新标准的评估。主要结果衡量标准的总分使用加权的中位数来补偿利益相关者组中的不同数字；保留了评分在7到9之间的标准。结果212名被提名的人被邀请参与。在受邀者中，122人参加了第一轮(77名研究人员、21名患者、10名从业人员、14名政策制定者)；104/122人(85%)参加了第二轮。83项标准中有74项保留在以下领域：系统发展过程(9/9标准)；提供有关备选方案的信息(13/13)；提出概率(11/13)；澄清和表达价值(3/3)；使用患者故事(2/5)；指导/指导(3/5)；披露利益冲突(5/5)；提供互联网接入(6/6)；均衡介绍备选方案(3/3)；使用通俗易懂的语言(4/6)；根据最新证据提供信息(7/7)；和建立有效性(8/8)。结论标准在有证据的地方给予最高评级，并被保留。强调了研究中的差距。现在，患者决策辅助工具的开发者、用户和购买者都有一份评估质量的核对表。正在开发一种用于衡量决策辅助工具质量的仪器。
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.