Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Processes for evidence summarization for patient decision aids: A Delphi consensus study.
Scalia, Peter; Saunders, Catherine H; Dannenberg, Michelle; Mc Giguere, Anik; Alper, Brian S; Hoffmann, Tammy; Perestelo-Perez, Lilisbeth; Durand, Marie-Anne; Elwyn, Glyn.
Afiliación
  • Scalia P; The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth College, Lebanon, NH, USA.
  • Saunders CH; The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth College, Lebanon, NH, USA.
  • Dannenberg M; The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth College, Lebanon, NH, USA.
  • Mc Giguere A; Faculte de medicine, Universite Laval, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada.
  • Alper BS; Computable Publishing LLC, Ipswich, MA, USA.
  • Hoffmann T; Institute of Evidence-Based Healthcare, Bond University, Gold Coast, Qld, Australia.
  • Perestelo-Perez L; Evaluation Unit of the Canary Islands Health Service. REDISSEC, Tenerife, Spain.
  • Durand MA; The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth College, Lebanon, NH, USA.
  • Elwyn G; The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth College, Lebanon, NH, USA.
Health Expect ; 24(4): 1178-1186, 2021 08.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33991160
BACKGROUND: Patient decision aids (PDAs) should provide evidence-based information so patients can make informed decisions. Yet, PDA developers do not have an agreed-upon process to select, synthesize and present evidence in PDAs. OBJECTIVE: To reach the consensus on an evidence summarization process for PDAs. DESIGN: A two-round modified Delphi survey. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A group of international experts in PDA development invited developers, scientific networks, patient groups and listservs to complete Delphi surveys. DATA COLLECTION: We emailed participants the study description and a link to the online survey. Participants were asked to rate each potential criterion (omit, possible, desirable, essential) and provide qualitative feedback. ANALYSIS: Criteria in each round were retained if rated by >80% of participants as desirable or essential. If two or more participants suggested rewording, reordering or merging, the steering group considered the suggestion. RESULTS: Following two Delphi survey rounds, the evidence summarization process included defining the decision, reporting the processes and policies of the evidence summarization process, assembling the editorial team and managing (collect, manage, report) their conflicts of interest, conducting a systematic search, selecting and appraising the evidence, presenting the harms and benefits in plain language, and describing the method of seeking external review and the plan for updating the evidence (search, selection and appraisal of new evidence). CONCLUSION: A multidisciplinary stakeholder group reached consensus on an evidence summarization process to guide the creation of high-quality PDAs. PATIENT CONTRIBUTION: A patient partner was part of the steering group and involved in the development of the Delphi survey.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Bases de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Proyectos de Investigación / Técnicas de Apoyo para la Decisión Tipo de estudio: Guideline / Prognostic_studies / Qualitative_research Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Health Expect Asunto de la revista: PESQUISA EM SERVICOS DE SAUDE / SAUDE PUBLICA Año: 2021 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Estados Unidos

Texto completo: 1 Bases de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Proyectos de Investigación / Técnicas de Apoyo para la Decisión Tipo de estudio: Guideline / Prognostic_studies / Qualitative_research Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Health Expect Asunto de la revista: PESQUISA EM SERVICOS DE SAUDE / SAUDE PUBLICA Año: 2021 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Estados Unidos