The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth College, Lebanon, NH, USA.
Faculte de medicine, Universite Laval, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada.
Health Expect. 2021 Aug;24(4):1178-1186. doi: 10.1111/hex.13244. Epub 2021 May 15.
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.
To reach the consensus on an evidence summarization process for PDAs.
A two-round modified Delphi survey.
A group of international experts in PDA development invited developers, scientific networks, patient groups and listservs to complete Delphi surveys.
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.
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.
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).
A multidisciplinary stakeholder group reached consensus on an evidence summarization process to guide the creation of high-quality PDAs.
A patient partner was part of the steering group and involved in the development of the Delphi survey.
患者决策辅助工具（PDAs）应提供基于证据的信息，以便患者能够做出明智的决策。然而，PDAs 的开发者并没有一个商定的过程来选择、综合和呈现 PDA 中的证据。
就 PDAs 的证据总结过程达成共识。
两轮改良 Delphi 调查。
一组国际 PDAs 开发专家邀请了开发者、科学网络、患者团体和列表服务来完成 Delphi 调查。
我们通过电子邮件向参与者发送了研究描述和在线调查的链接。参与者被要求对每个潜在标准（省略、可能、可取、必要）进行评分，并提供定性反馈。
如果>80%的参与者认为某个标准可取或必要，则保留该标准。如果两个或更多参与者建议改写、重新排序或合并，则指导小组会考虑该建议。
经过两轮 Delphi 调查，证据总结过程包括定义决策、报告证据总结过程的流程和政策、组建编辑团队并管理（收集、管理、报告）他们的利益冲突、进行系统搜索、选择和评估证据、用通俗易懂的语言呈现危害和益处，以及描述寻求外部审查的方法和更新证据的计划（搜索、选择和评估新证据）。
一个多学科利益相关者小组就指导高质量 PDAs 创建的证据总结过程达成了共识。
一名患者伙伴是指导小组的成员，并参与了 Delphi 调查的开发。
