Cargando…

Standards for UNiversal reporting of patient Decision Aid Evaluation studies: the development of SUNDAE Checklist

BACKGROUND: Patient decision aids (PDAs) are evidence-based tools designed to help patients make specific and deliberated choices among healthcare options. The International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration review papers and Cochrane systematic review of PDAs have found significa...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sepucha, Karen R, Abhyankar, Purva, Hoffman, Aubri S, Bekker, Hilary L, LeBlanc, Annie, Levin, Carrie A, Ropka, Mary, Shaffer, Victoria A, Sheridan, Stacey L, Stacey, Dawn, Stalmeier, Peep, Vo, Ha, Wills, Celia E, Thomson, Richard
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5965362/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29269567
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2017-006986
_version_ 1783325343150505984
author Sepucha, Karen R
Abhyankar, Purva
Hoffman, Aubri S
Bekker, Hilary L
LeBlanc, Annie
Levin, Carrie A
Ropka, Mary
Shaffer, Victoria A
Sheridan, Stacey L
Stacey, Dawn
Stalmeier, Peep
Vo, Ha
Wills, Celia E
Thomson, Richard
author_facet Sepucha, Karen R
Abhyankar, Purva
Hoffman, Aubri S
Bekker, Hilary L
LeBlanc, Annie
Levin, Carrie A
Ropka, Mary
Shaffer, Victoria A
Sheridan, Stacey L
Stacey, Dawn
Stalmeier, Peep
Vo, Ha
Wills, Celia E
Thomson, Richard
author_sort Sepucha, Karen R
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Patient decision aids (PDAs) are evidence-based tools designed to help patients make specific and deliberated choices among healthcare options. The International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration review papers and Cochrane systematic review of PDAs have found significant gaps in the reporting of evaluations of PDAs, including poor or limited reporting of PDA content, development methods and delivery. This study sought to develop and reach consensus on reporting guidelines to improve the quality of publications evaluating PDAs. METHODS: An international workgroup, consisting of members from IPDAS Collaboration, followed established methods to develop reporting guidelines for PDA evaluation studies. This paper describes the results from three completed phases: (1) planning, (2) drafting and (3) consensus, which included a modified, two-stage, online international Delphi process. The work was conducted over 2 years with bimonthly conference calls and three in-person meetings. The workgroup used input from these phases to produce a final set of recommended items in the form of a checklist. RESULTS: The SUNDAE Checklist (Standards for UNiversal reporting of patient Decision Aid Evaluations) includes 26 items recommended for studies reporting evaluations of PDAs. In the two-stage Delphi process, 117/143 (82%) experts from 14 countries completed round 1 and 96/117 (82%) completed round 2. Respondents reached a high level of consensus on the importance of the items and indicated strong willingness to use the items when reporting PDA studies. CONCLUSION: The SUNDAE Checklist will help ensure that reports of PDA evaluation studies are understandable, transparent and of high quality. A separate Explanation and Elaboration publication provides additional details to support use of the checklist.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5965362
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59653622018-05-31 Standards for UNiversal reporting of patient Decision Aid Evaluation studies: the development of SUNDAE Checklist Sepucha, Karen R Abhyankar, Purva Hoffman, Aubri S Bekker, Hilary L LeBlanc, Annie Levin, Carrie A Ropka, Mary Shaffer, Victoria A Sheridan, Stacey L Stacey, Dawn Stalmeier, Peep Vo, Ha Wills, Celia E Thomson, Richard BMJ Qual Saf Research and Reporting Methodology BACKGROUND: Patient decision aids (PDAs) are evidence-based tools designed to help patients make specific and deliberated choices among healthcare options. The International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration review papers and Cochrane systematic review of PDAs have found significant gaps in the reporting of evaluations of PDAs, including poor or limited reporting of PDA content, development methods and delivery. This study sought to develop and reach consensus on reporting guidelines to improve the quality of publications evaluating PDAs. METHODS: An international workgroup, consisting of members from IPDAS Collaboration, followed established methods to develop reporting guidelines for PDA evaluation studies. This paper describes the results from three completed phases: (1) planning, (2) drafting and (3) consensus, which included a modified, two-stage, online international Delphi process. The work was conducted over 2 years with bimonthly conference calls and three in-person meetings. The workgroup used input from these phases to produce a final set of recommended items in the form of a checklist. RESULTS: The SUNDAE Checklist (Standards for UNiversal reporting of patient Decision Aid Evaluations) includes 26 items recommended for studies reporting evaluations of PDAs. In the two-stage Delphi process, 117/143 (82%) experts from 14 countries completed round 1 and 96/117 (82%) completed round 2. Respondents reached a high level of consensus on the importance of the items and indicated strong willingness to use the items when reporting PDA studies. CONCLUSION: The SUNDAE Checklist will help ensure that reports of PDA evaluation studies are understandable, transparent and of high quality. A separate Explanation and Elaboration publication provides additional details to support use of the checklist. BMJ Publishing Group 2018-05 2017-12-21 /pmc/articles/PMC5965362/ /pubmed/29269567 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2017-006986 Text en © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted. This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
spellingShingle Research and Reporting Methodology
Sepucha, Karen R
Abhyankar, Purva
Hoffman, Aubri S
Bekker, Hilary L
LeBlanc, Annie
Levin, Carrie A
Ropka, Mary
Shaffer, Victoria A
Sheridan, Stacey L
Stacey, Dawn
Stalmeier, Peep
Vo, Ha
Wills, Celia E
Thomson, Richard
Standards for UNiversal reporting of patient Decision Aid Evaluation studies: the development of SUNDAE Checklist
title Standards for UNiversal reporting of patient Decision Aid Evaluation studies: the development of SUNDAE Checklist
title_full Standards for UNiversal reporting of patient Decision Aid Evaluation studies: the development of SUNDAE Checklist
title_fullStr Standards for UNiversal reporting of patient Decision Aid Evaluation studies: the development of SUNDAE Checklist
title_full_unstemmed Standards for UNiversal reporting of patient Decision Aid Evaluation studies: the development of SUNDAE Checklist
title_short Standards for UNiversal reporting of patient Decision Aid Evaluation studies: the development of SUNDAE Checklist
title_sort standards for universal reporting of patient decision aid evaluation studies: the development of sundae checklist
topic Research and Reporting Methodology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5965362/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29269567
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2017-006986
work_keys_str_mv AT sepuchakarenr standardsforuniversalreportingofpatientdecisionaidevaluationstudiesthedevelopmentofsundaechecklist
AT abhyankarpurva standardsforuniversalreportingofpatientdecisionaidevaluationstudiesthedevelopmentofsundaechecklist
AT hoffmanaubris standardsforuniversalreportingofpatientdecisionaidevaluationstudiesthedevelopmentofsundaechecklist
AT bekkerhilaryl standardsforuniversalreportingofpatientdecisionaidevaluationstudiesthedevelopmentofsundaechecklist
AT leblancannie standardsforuniversalreportingofpatientdecisionaidevaluationstudiesthedevelopmentofsundaechecklist
AT levincarriea standardsforuniversalreportingofpatientdecisionaidevaluationstudiesthedevelopmentofsundaechecklist
AT ropkamary standardsforuniversalreportingofpatientdecisionaidevaluationstudiesthedevelopmentofsundaechecklist
AT shaffervictoriaa standardsforuniversalreportingofpatientdecisionaidevaluationstudiesthedevelopmentofsundaechecklist
AT sheridanstaceyl standardsforuniversalreportingofpatientdecisionaidevaluationstudiesthedevelopmentofsundaechecklist
AT staceydawn standardsforuniversalreportingofpatientdecisionaidevaluationstudiesthedevelopmentofsundaechecklist
AT stalmeierpeep standardsforuniversalreportingofpatientdecisionaidevaluationstudiesthedevelopmentofsundaechecklist
AT voha standardsforuniversalreportingofpatientdecisionaidevaluationstudiesthedevelopmentofsundaechecklist
AT willsceliae standardsforuniversalreportingofpatientdecisionaidevaluationstudiesthedevelopmentofsundaechecklist
AT thomsonrichard standardsforuniversalreportingofpatientdecisionaidevaluationstudiesthedevelopmentofsundaechecklist