Elwyn Glyn, O'Connor Annette, Stacey Dawn, Volk Robert, Edwards Adrian, Coulter Angela, Thomson Richard, Barratt Alexandra, Barry Michael, Bernstein Steven, Butow Phyllis, Clarke Aileen, Entwistle Vikki, Feldman-Stewart Deb, Holmes-Rovner Margaret, Llewellyn-Thomas Hilary, Moumjid Nora, Mulley Al, Ruland Cornelia, Sepucha Karen, Sykes Alan, Whelan Tim
Department of General Practice, Centre for Health Sciences Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF14 4YS.
BMJ. 2006 Aug 26;333(7565):417. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38926.629329.AE. Epub 2006 Aug 14.
To develop a set of quality criteria for patient decision support technologies (decision aids).
Two stage web based Delphi process using online rating process to enable international collaboration.
Individuals from four stakeholder groups (researchers, practitioners, patients, policy makers) representing 14 countries reviewed evidence summaries and rated the importance of 80 criteria in 12 quality domains on a 1 to 9 scale. Second round participants received feedback from the first round and repeated their assessment of the 80 criteria plus three new ones.
Aggregate ratings for each criterion calculated using medians weighted to compensate for different numbers in stakeholder groups; criteria rated between 7 and 9 were retained.
212 nominated people were invited to participate. Of those invited, 122 participated in the first round (77 researchers, 21 patients, 10 practitioners, 14 policy makers); 104/122 (85%) participated in the second round. 74 of 83 criteria were retained in the following domains: systematic development process (9/9 criteria); providing information about options (13/13); presenting probabilities (11/13); clarifying and expressing values (3/3); using patient stories (2/5); guiding/coaching (3/5); disclosing conflicts of interest (5/5); providing internet access (6/6); balanced presentation of options (3/3); using plain language (4/6); basing information on up to date evidence (7/7); and establishing effectiveness (8/8).
Criteria were given the highest ratings where evidence existed, and these were retained. Gaps in research were highlighted. Developers, users, and purchasers of patient decision aids now have a checklist for appraising quality. An instrument for measuring quality of decision aids is being developed.
制定一套患者决策支持技术(决策辅助工具)的质量标准。
采用基于网络的两阶段德尔菲法,并使用在线评分流程以实现国际合作。
来自代表14个国家的四个利益相关者群体(研究人员、从业者、患者、政策制定者)的个人,对证据摘要进行了评审,并以1至9的等级对12个质量领域中的80条标准的重要性进行了评分。第二轮参与者收到了第一轮的反馈,并再次对80条标准以及另外三条新标准进行了评估。
使用中位数加权计算每个标准的综合评分,以补偿利益相关者群体中不同的人数;保留评分在7至9之间的标准。
邀请了212名被提名者参与。在受邀者中,122人参与了第一轮(77名研究人员、21名患者、10名从业者、14名政策制定者);122人中的104人(85%)参与了第二轮。83条标准中的74条被保留在以下领域:系统开发过程(9条标准中的9条);提供备选方案信息(13条中的13条);呈现概率(13条中的11条);阐明和表达价值观(3条中的3条);使用患者案例(5条中的2条);指导/辅导(5条中的3条);披露利益冲突(5条中的5条);提供互联网接入(6条中的6条);均衡呈现备选方案(3条中的3条);使用通俗易懂的语言(6条中的4条);依据最新证据提供信息(7条中的7条);以及确立有效性(8条中的8条)。
在有证据支持的情况下,标准获得了最高评分,并被保留下来。研究中的差距也得以凸显。患者决策辅助工具的开发者、使用者和购买者现在有了一份评估质量的清单。正在开发一种衡量决策辅助工具质量的工具。