Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Oct;41(7):736-754.
doi: 10.1177/0272989X211014163. Epub 2021 Jun 19.

Systematic Development of Patient Decision Aids: An Update from the IPDAS Collaboration

Holly O Witteman  1   2   3 , Kristin G Maki  4 , Gratianne Vaisson  5 , Jeanette Finderup  6 , Krystina B Lewis  7   8 , Karina Dahl Steffensen  9   10 , Caroline Beaudoin  11 , Sandrine Comeau  11 , Robert J Volk  4
Affiliations

Systematic Development of Patient Decision Aids: An Update from the IPDAS Collaboration

Holly O Witteman et al. Med Decis Making. 2021 Oct.

Abstract

Background: The 2013 update of the evidence informing the quality dimensions behind the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) offered a model process for developers of patient decision aids.

Objective: To summarize and update the evidence used to inform the systematic development of patient decision aids from the IPDAS Collaboration.

Methods: To provide further details about design and development methods, we summarized findings from a subgroup (n = 283 patient decision aid projects) in a recent systematic review of user involvement by Vaisson et al. Using a new measure of user-centeredness (UCD-11), we then rated the degree of user-centeredness reported in 66 articles describing patient decision aid development and citing the 2013 IPDAS update on systematic development. We contacted the 66 articles' authors to request their self-reports of UCD-11 items.

Results: The 283 development processes varied substantially from minimal iteration cycles to more complex processes, with multiple iterations, needs assessments, and extensive involvement of end users. We summarized minimal, medium, and maximal processes from the data. Authors of 54 of 66 articles (82%) provided self-reported UCD-11 ratings. Self-reported scores were significantly higher than reviewer ratings (reviewers: mean [SD] = 6.45 [3.10]; authors: mean [SD] = 9.62 [1.16], P < 0.001).

Conclusions: Decision aid developers have embraced principles of user-centered design in the development of patient decision aids while also underreporting aspects of user involvement in publications about their tools. Templates may reduce the need for extensive development, and new approaches for rapid development of aids have been proposed when a more detailed approach is not feasible. We provide empirically derived benchmark processes and a reporting checklist to support developers in more fully describing their development processes.[Box: see text].

Keywords: decision making; preference elicitation; shared decision making; values clarification.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors have no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Figures

Appendix Figure 1.
Appendix Figure 1.
Overview of Search and Review Strategy.
Figure 1
Figure 1
/Model development process incorporating user-centered design framework from the IPDAS collaboration.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Coulter A, Stilwell D, Kryworuchko J, Mullen PD, Ng CJ, van der Weijden T. A systematic development process for patient decision aids. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13 Suppl 2:S2. Epub 2013/01/01. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-13-S2-S2. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Joseph-Williams N, Abhyankar P, Boland L, Bravo P, Brenner AT, Brodney S, et al. What Works in Implementing Patient Decision Aids in Routine Clinical Settings? A Rapid Realist Review and Update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Collaboration. Med Decis Making. 2020:272989X20978208. Epub 2020/12/16. doi: 10.1177/0272989X20978208. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Vaisson G, Provencher T, Dugas M, Trottier ME, Chipenda Dansokho S, Colquhoun H, et al. User Involvement in the Design and Development of Patient Decision Aids and Other Personal Health Tools: A Systematic Review. Med Decis Making. 2021;41(3):261–74. Epub 2021/03/04. doi: 10.1177/0272989X20984134. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Slattery P, Saeri AK, Bragge P. Research co-design in health: a rapid overview of reviews. Health Res Policy Syst. 2020;18(1):17. Epub 2020/02/13. doi: 10.1186/s12961-020-0528-9. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sepucha KR, Abhyankar P, Hoffman AS, Bekker HL, LeBlanc A, Levin CA, et al. Standards for UNiversal reporting of patient Decision Aid Evaluation studies: the development of SUNDAE Checklist. Bmj Quality & Safety. 2018;27(5):380–8. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2017-006986. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types