7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

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

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          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 < 0.001).

          Conclusions

          Decision aid developers have embraced principles of user-centered design in the development of patient decision aids while also underreporting aspects of user involvement in publications about their tools. Templates may reduce the need for extensive development, and new approaches for rapid development of aids have been proposed when a more detailed approach is not feasible. We provide empirically derived benchmark processes and a reporting checklist to support developers in more fully describing their development processes. [Box: see text]

          Related collections

          Most cited references73

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support.

          Research electronic data capture (REDCap) is a novel workflow methodology and software solution designed for rapid development and deployment of electronic data capture tools to support clinical and translational research. We present: (1) a brief description of the REDCap metadata-driven software toolset; (2) detail concerning the capture and use of study-related metadata from scientific research teams; (3) measures of impact for REDCap; (4) details concerning a consortium network of domestic and international institutions collaborating on the project; and (5) strengths and limitations of the REDCap system. REDCap is currently supporting 286 translational research projects in a growing collaborative network including 27 active partner institutions.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The REDCap consortium: Building an international community of software platform partners

            The Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) data management platform was developed in 2004 to address an institutional need at Vanderbilt University, then shared with a limited number of adopting sites beginning in 2006. Given bi-directional benefit in early sharing experiments, we created a broader consortium sharing and support model for any academic, non-profit, or government partner wishing to adopt the software. Our sharing framework and consortium-based support model have evolved over time along with the size of the consortium (currently more than 3200 REDCap partners across 128 countries). While the "REDCap Consortium" model represents only one example of how to build and disseminate a software platform, lessons learned from our approach may assist other research institutions seeking to build and disseminate innovative technologies.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Research co-design in health: a rapid overview of reviews

              Background Billions of dollars are lost annually in health research that fails to create meaningful benefits for patients. Engaging in research co-design – the meaningful involvement of end-users in research – may help address this research waste. This rapid overview of reviews addressed three related questions, namely (1) what approaches to research co-design exist in health settings? (2) What activities do these research co-design approaches involve? (3) What do we know about the effectiveness of existing research co-design approaches? The review focused on the study planning phase of research, defined as the point up to which the research question and study design are finalised. Methods Reviews of research co-design were systematically identified using a rapid overview of reviews approach (PROSPERO: CRD42019123034). The search strategy encompassed three academic databases, three grey literature databases, and a hand-search of the journal Research Involvement and Engagement. Two reviewers independently conducted the screening and data extraction and resolved disagreements through discussion. Disputes were resolved through discussion with a senior author (PB). One reviewer performed quality assessment. The results were narratively synthesised. Results A total of 26 records (reporting on 23 reviews) met the inclusion criteria. Reviews varied widely in their application of ‘research co-design’ and their application contexts, scope and theoretical foci. The research co-design approaches identified involved interactions with end-users outside of study planning, such as recruitment and dissemination. Activities involved in research co-design included focus groups, interviews and surveys. The effectiveness of research co-design has rarely been evaluated empirically or experimentally; however, qualitative exploration has described the positive and negative outcomes associated with co-design. The research provided many recommendations for conducting research co-design, including training participating end-users in research skills, having regular communication between researchers and end-users, setting clear end-user expectations, and assigning set roles to all parties involved in co-design. Conclusions Research co-design appears to be widely used but seldom described or evaluated in detail. Though it has rarely been tested empirically or experimentally, existing research suggests that it can benefit researchers, practitioners, research processes and research outcomes. Realising the potential of research co-design may require the development of clearer and more consistent terminology, better reporting of the activities involved and better evaluation.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Medical Decision Making
                Med Decis Making
                SAGE Publications
                0272-989X
                1552-681X
                October 2021
                June 19 2021
                October 2021
                : 41
                : 7
                : 736-754
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Family and Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Laval University, Quebec City, Canada
                [2 ]VITAM Research Centre, Quebec City, Canada
                [3 ]CHU de Québec Research Centre, Quebec City, Canada
                [4 ]Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
                [5 ]Department of Family and Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Laval University, Quebec City, Québec, Canada
                [6 ]Research Centre for Patient Involvement & Department of Renal Medicine, Aarhus University & Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
                [7 ]School of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
                [8 ]University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada
                [9 ]Center for Shared Decision Making/Department of Oncology, Lillebaelt University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Vejle, Denmark
                [10 ]Institute of Regional Health Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, Vejle, Denmark
                [11 ]Department of Family and Emergency Medicine, Laval University, Quebec, Canada
                Article
                10.1177/0272989X211014163
                34148384
                31ba51ee-0f5b-47fa-a922-f463d6136c33
                © 2021

                http://journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article