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...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
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 |