Cargando…

A ‘combined framework’ approach to developing a patient decision aid: the PANDAs model

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of practical research frameworks to guide the development of patient decision aids [PtDAs]. This paper described how a PtDA was developed using the International Patient Decision Aids (IPDAS) guideline and UK Medical Research Council (UKMRC) frameworks to support patients...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ng, Chirk Jenn, Mathers, Nigel, Bradley, Alastair, Colwell, Brigitte
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4210601/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25341370
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-014-0503-7
_version_ 1782341407730565120
author Ng, Chirk Jenn
Mathers, Nigel
Bradley, Alastair
Colwell, Brigitte
author_facet Ng, Chirk Jenn
Mathers, Nigel
Bradley, Alastair
Colwell, Brigitte
author_sort Ng, Chirk Jenn
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: There is a lack of practical research frameworks to guide the development of patient decision aids [PtDAs]. This paper described how a PtDA was developed using the International Patient Decision Aids (IPDAS) guideline and UK Medical Research Council (UKMRC) frameworks to support patients when making treatment decisions in type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: This study used mixed methods to develop a PtDA for use in a UK general practice setting. A 10-member expert panel was convened to guide development and patients and clinicians were also interviewed individually using semi-structured interview guides to identify their decisional needs. Current literature was reviewed systematically to determine the best available evidence. The Ottawa Decision Support Framework was used to guide the presentation of the information and value clarification exercise. An iterative draft-review-revise process by the research team and review panel was conducted until the PtDA reached content and format ‘saturation’. The PtDA was then pilot-tested by users in actual consultations to assess its acceptability and feasibility. The IPDAS and UKMRC frameworks were used throughout to inform the development process. RESULTS: The PANDAs PtDA was developed systematically and iteratively. Patients and clinicians highlighted the needs for information, decisional, emotional and social support, which were incorporated into the PtDA. The literature review identified gaps in high quality evidence and variations in patient outcome reporting. The PtDA comprised five components: background of the treatment options; pros and cons of each treatment option; value clarification exercise; support needs; and readiness to decide. CONCLUSIONS: This study has demonstrated the feasibility of combining the IPDAS and the UKMRC frameworks for the development and evaluation of a PtDA. Future studies should test this model for developing PtDAs across different decisions and healthcare contexts. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-014-0503-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4210601
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-42106012014-10-29 A ‘combined framework’ approach to developing a patient decision aid: the PANDAs model Ng, Chirk Jenn Mathers, Nigel Bradley, Alastair Colwell, Brigitte BMC Health Serv Res Research Article BACKGROUND: There is a lack of practical research frameworks to guide the development of patient decision aids [PtDAs]. This paper described how a PtDA was developed using the International Patient Decision Aids (IPDAS) guideline and UK Medical Research Council (UKMRC) frameworks to support patients when making treatment decisions in type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: This study used mixed methods to develop a PtDA for use in a UK general practice setting. A 10-member expert panel was convened to guide development and patients and clinicians were also interviewed individually using semi-structured interview guides to identify their decisional needs. Current literature was reviewed systematically to determine the best available evidence. The Ottawa Decision Support Framework was used to guide the presentation of the information and value clarification exercise. An iterative draft-review-revise process by the research team and review panel was conducted until the PtDA reached content and format ‘saturation’. The PtDA was then pilot-tested by users in actual consultations to assess its acceptability and feasibility. The IPDAS and UKMRC frameworks were used throughout to inform the development process. RESULTS: The PANDAs PtDA was developed systematically and iteratively. Patients and clinicians highlighted the needs for information, decisional, emotional and social support, which were incorporated into the PtDA. The literature review identified gaps in high quality evidence and variations in patient outcome reporting. The PtDA comprised five components: background of the treatment options; pros and cons of each treatment option; value clarification exercise; support needs; and readiness to decide. CONCLUSIONS: This study has demonstrated the feasibility of combining the IPDAS and the UKMRC frameworks for the development and evaluation of a PtDA. Future studies should test this model for developing PtDAs across different decisions and healthcare contexts. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-014-0503-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2014-10-24 /pmc/articles/PMC4210601/ /pubmed/25341370 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-014-0503-7 Text en © Ng et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Ng, Chirk Jenn
Mathers, Nigel
Bradley, Alastair
Colwell, Brigitte
A ‘combined framework’ approach to developing a patient decision aid: the PANDAs model
title A ‘combined framework’ approach to developing a patient decision aid: the PANDAs model
title_full A ‘combined framework’ approach to developing a patient decision aid: the PANDAs model
title_fullStr A ‘combined framework’ approach to developing a patient decision aid: the PANDAs model
title_full_unstemmed A ‘combined framework’ approach to developing a patient decision aid: the PANDAs model
title_short A ‘combined framework’ approach to developing a patient decision aid: the PANDAs model
title_sort ‘combined framework’ approach to developing a patient decision aid: the pandas model
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4210601/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25341370
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-014-0503-7
work_keys_str_mv AT ngchirkjenn acombinedframeworkapproachtodevelopingapatientdecisionaidthepandasmodel
AT mathersnigel acombinedframeworkapproachtodevelopingapatientdecisionaidthepandasmodel
AT bradleyalastair acombinedframeworkapproachtodevelopingapatientdecisionaidthepandasmodel
AT colwellbrigitte acombinedframeworkapproachtodevelopingapatientdecisionaidthepandasmodel
AT ngchirkjenn combinedframeworkapproachtodevelopingapatientdecisionaidthepandasmodel
AT mathersnigel combinedframeworkapproachtodevelopingapatientdecisionaidthepandasmodel
AT bradleyalastair combinedframeworkapproachtodevelopingapatientdecisionaidthepandasmodel
AT colwellbrigitte combinedframeworkapproachtodevelopingapatientdecisionaidthepandasmodel