Basing Information on Comprehensive, Critically Appraised, and Up-to-Date Syntheses of the Scientific Evidence: An Update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards

Tammy C. Hoffmann, Mina Bakhit, Marie-Anne Durand, Lilisbeth Perestelo-Pérez, Catherine Saunders and Juan P. Brito
Additional contact information
Tammy C. Hoffmann: Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
Mina Bakhit: Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
Marie-Anne Durand: Universite Toulouse III Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France
Lilisbeth Perestelo-Pérez: Evaluation Unit, Canary Islands Health Service, REDISSEC, Tenerife, Spain
Catherine Saunders: The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Lebanon, NH, USA
Juan P. Brito: Knowledge Evaluation and Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Minnesota, Rochester, MN, USA

Medical Decision Making, 2021, vol. 41, issue 7, 755-767

Abstract: Background Patients and clinicians expect the information in patient decision aids to be based on the best available research evidence. The objectives of this International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) review were to 1) check the currency of, and where needed, update evidence for the domain of “basing the information in decision aids on comprehensive, critically appraised, and up-to-date syntheses of the evidence†; 2) analyze the evidence characteristics of decision aids; and 3) propose updates to relevant IPDAS criteria. Methods We searched MEDLINE and PubMed to inform updates of this domain’s definitions, justifications, and components. We also searched 5 sources to identify all publicly available decision aids ( N = 471). Two assessors independently extracted each aid’s evidence characteristics. Results Minor updates to the definitions and theoretical justifications of this IPDAS domain are provided and changes to relevant IPDAS criteria proposed. Nearly all aids (97%) provided a year of creation/update, but most (81%) did not report an explicit update or expiration policy. No scientific references were cited in 33% of aids. Of the 314 that cited at least 1 reference, 39% cited at least 1 guideline, 44% cited at least 1 systematic review, and 23% cited at least 1 randomized trial. In 35%, it was unclear what statement in the aid the citations referred to. Only 14% reported any of the processes used to find and decide on evidence inclusion. Only 14% reported the evidence quality. Many emerging issues and future research areas were identified. Conclusions Although many emerging issues need to be addressed, this IPDAS domain is validated and criteria refined. High-quality patient decision aids should be based on comprehensive and up-to-date syntheses of critically appraised evidence.

Keywords: patient decision aids; shared decision making; evidence-based; IPDAS; evidence synthesis (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2021
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X21996622 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:medema:v:41:y:2021:i:7:p:755-767

DOI: 10.1177/0272989X21996622

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Medical Decision Making
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().