Suppr超能文献

系统开发患者决策辅助工具:来自 IPDAS 合作组织的最新更新。

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

机构信息

Department of Family and Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Laval University, Quebec City, Canada.

VITAM Research Centre, Quebec City, Canada.

出版信息

Med Decis Making. 2021 Oct;41(7):736-754. doi: 10.1177/0272989X211014163. Epub 2021 Jun 19.

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 ( = 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], < 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].

摘要

背景

2013 年对国际患者决策辅助标准(IPDAS)背后质量维度的证据进行了更新,为患者决策辅助工具的开发者提供了一个模型流程。

目的

总结和更新 IPDAS 协作中用于系统开发患者决策辅助工具的证据。

方法

为了提供有关设计和开发方法的更多详细信息,我们总结了 Vaisson 等人最近对用户参与情况进行的系统评价中的一个子组(=283 个患者决策辅助项目)的研究结果。使用新的以用户为中心程度(UCD-11)度量标准,我们对 66 篇描述患者决策辅助工具开发并引用 2013 年 IPDAS 系统开发更新的文章中报告的以用户为中心程度进行了评分。我们联系了这 66 篇文章的作者,要求他们报告 UCD-11 项目的自我评估结果。

结果

283 个开发过程差异很大,从最小迭代周期到更复杂的过程,包括多次迭代、需求评估和广泛的最终用户参与。我们从数据中总结了最小、中等和最大的过程。66 篇文章中有 54 篇(82%)的作者提供了自我报告的 UCD-11 评分。自我报告的分数明显高于评审者的评分(评审者:平均[标准差] = 6.45 [3.10];作者:平均[标准差] = 9.62 [1.16],<0.001)。

结论

在开发患者决策辅助工具时,决策辅助工具的开发者已经接受了以用户为中心的设计原则,同时在其工具的出版物中对用户参与的各个方面也有少报的情况。模板可能减少对广泛开发的需求,当更详细的方法不可行时,已经提出了用于快速开发辅助工具的新方法。我们提供了经验性衍生的基准过程和报告清单,以支持开发者更全面地描述其开发过程。[框:见文本]。

相似文献

1
Systematic Development of Patient Decision Aids: An Update from the IPDAS Collaboration.
Med Decis Making. 2021 Oct;41(7):736-754. doi: 10.1177/0272989X211014163. Epub 2021 Jun 19.
4
Providing Balanced Information about Options in Patient Decision Aids: An Update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards.
Med Decis Making. 2021 Oct;41(7):780-800. doi: 10.1177/0272989X211021397. Epub 2021 Jul 1.
5
Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Jan 28(1):CD001431. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub4.
6
Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Jul 8(3):CD001431. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub2.
9
Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Oct 5(10):CD001431. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub3.
10
User Involvement in the Design and Development of Patient Decision Aids and Other Personal Health Tools: A Systematic Review.
Med Decis Making. 2021 Apr;41(3):261-274. doi: 10.1177/0272989X20984134. Epub 2021 Mar 3.

引用本文的文献

1
Addressing complexity: The development and pilot testing of a user-friendly Medicare Part D patient decision aid tool.
J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2025 Sep;31(9):868-878. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2025.31.9.868.
2
AI-Supported Shared Decision-Making (AI-SDM): Conceptual Framework.
JMIR AI. 2025 Aug 7;4:e75866. doi: 10.2196/75866.
4
Process for Rapid Co-development of a Decision Aid Prototype for Population-wide Cancer Screening.
Med Decis Making. 2025 Oct;45(7):775-793. doi: 10.1177/0272989X251346894. Epub 2025 Jul 14.
5
Can health information and decision aids decrease inequity in health care? A systematic review.
BMJ Public Health. 2025 Jul 5;3(2):e001923. doi: 10.1136/bmjph-2024-001923. eCollection 2025.
7
Empowering patient choice: a systematic review of decision aids for benign prostatic hyperplasia.
BJU Int. 2025 Sep;136(3):359-371. doi: 10.1111/bju.16797. Epub 2025 May 27.
8
A Mixed-Methods Usability Pilot of a Value-Goal Elicitation Tool in the Inpatient Setting for Older Adults Anticipating Post-Acute Care.
Inquiry. 2025 Jan-Dec;62:469580251332131. doi: 10.1177/00469580251332131. Epub 2025 Apr 24.
9
Racial and Ethnic Differences in Shared Decision Making Among Patients With Hypertension: Results From the RICH LIFE Project.
J Am Heart Assoc. 2025 May 6;14(9):e036664. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.124.036664. Epub 2025 Apr 23.

本文引用的文献

2
User Involvement in the Design and Development of Patient Decision Aids and Other Personal Health Tools: A Systematic Review.
Med Decis Making. 2021 Apr;41(3):261-274. doi: 10.1177/0272989X20984134. Epub 2021 Mar 3.
7
Research co-design in health: a rapid overview of reviews.
Health Res Policy Syst. 2020 Feb 11;18(1):17. doi: 10.1186/s12961-020-0528-9.
8
Are Patient Decision Aids Used in Clinical Practice after Rigorous Evaluation? A Survey of Trial Authors.
Med Decis Making. 2019 Oct;39(7):805-815. doi: 10.1177/0272989X19868193. Epub 2019 Aug 17.
9
Development and field testing of a tool to elicit women's preferences among cervical cancer screening modalities.
J Eval Clin Pract. 2019 Dec;25(6):1169-1181. doi: 10.1111/jep.13258. Epub 2019 Aug 18.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验