认证
决策辅助工具
检查表
德尔菲法
质量(理念)
德尔菲
过程(计算)
心理学
计算机科学
包裹体(矿物)
医学教育
医学
社会心理学
人工智能
替代医学
政治学
哲学
认识论
病理
法学
认知心理学
操作系统
作者
Natalie Joseph‐Williams,Robert G. Newcombe,Mary C. Politi,Marie‐Anne Durand,Stephanie Sivell,Dawn Stacey,Annette M. O’Connor,Robert J. Volk,Adrian Edwards,Carol Bennett,Michael Pignone,Richard Thomson,Glyn Elwyn
标识
DOI:10.1177/0272989x13501721
摘要
Objective. The IPDAS Collaboration has developed a checklist and an instrument (IPDASi v3.0) to assess the quality of patient decision aids (PDAs) in terms of their development process and shared decision-making design components. Certification of PDAs is of growing interest in the US and elsewhere. We report a modified Delphi consensus process to agree on IPDASi (v3.0) items that should be considered as minimum standards for PDA certification, for inclusion in the refined IPDASi (v4.0). Methods. A 2-stage Delphi voting process considered the inclusion of IPDASi (v3.0) items as minimum standards. Item scores and qualitative comments were analyzed, followed by expert group discussion. Results. One hundred and one people voted in round 1; 87 in round 2. Forty-seven items were reduced to 44 items across 3 new categories: 1) qualifying criteria, which are required in order for an intervention to be considered a decision aid (6 items); 2) certification criteria, without which a decision aid is judged to have a high risk of harmful bias (10 items); and 3) quality criteria, believed to strengthen a decision aid but whose omission does not present a high risk of harmful bias (28 items). Conclusions. This study provides preliminary certification criteria for PDAs. Scoring and rating processes need to be tested and finalized. However, the process of appraising the quality of the clinical evidence reported by the PDA should be used to complement these criteria; the proposed standards are designed to rate the quality of the development process and shared decision-making design elements, not the quality of the PDA’s clinical content.
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI