scholarly journals Erratum to: Kidney Disease Pathways, Options and Decisions (KD-POD): An Environmental Scan of International Patient Decision Aids (PtDA)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna E Winterbottom ◽  
Andrew Mooney ◽  
Lynne Russon ◽  
Vicki Hipkiss ◽  
Lucy Ziegler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Kidney Disease ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Patient Decision Aids ◽  
Environmental Scan ◽  
Patient Decision ◽  
Disease Pathways

scholarly journals Kidney disease pathways, options and decisions: an environmental scan of international patient decision aids

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (12) ◽  
pp. 2072-2082
Author(s):  
Anna E Winterbottom ◽  
Andrew Mooney ◽  
Lynne Russon ◽  
Vicki Hipkiss ◽  
Lucy Ziegler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Kidney Disease ◽  
Conservative Management ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Evaluation Research ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Treatment Pathways ◽  
Patient Decision Aids ◽  
Environmental Scan ◽  
Patient Decision

Abstract Background Conservative management is recognized as an acceptable treatment for people with worsening chronic kidney disease; however, patients consistently report they lack understanding about their changing disease state and feel unsupported in making shared decisions about future treatment. The purpose of this review was to critically evaluate patient decision aids (PtDAs) developed to support patient–professional shared decision-making between dialysis and conservative management treatment pathways. Methods We performed a systematic review of resources accessible in English using environmental scan methods. Data sources included online databases of research publications, repositories for clinical guidelines, research projects and PtDAs, international PtDA expert lists and reference lists from relevant publications. The resource selection was from 56 screened records; 17 PtDAs were included. A data extraction sheet was applied to all eligible resources, eliciting resource characteristics, decision architecture to boost/bias thinking, indicators of quality such as International Standards for Patient Decision Aids Standards checklist and engagement with health services. Results PtDAs were developed in five countries; eleven were publically available via the Internet. Treatment options described were dialysis (n = 17), conservative management (n = 9) and transplant (n = 5). Eight resources signposted conservative management as an option rather than an active choice. Ten different labels across 14 resources were used to name ‘conservative management’. The readability of the resources was good. Six publications detail decision aid development and/or evaluation research. Using PtDAs improved treatment decision-making by patients. Only resources identified as PtDAs and available in English were included. Conclusions PtDAs are used by some services to support patients choosing between dialysis options or end-of-life options. PtDAs developed to proactively support people making informed decisions between conservative management and dialysis treatments are likely to enable services to meet current best practice.

scholarly journals Patient decision aids for adults with advanced chronic kidney disease with a medical recommendation to start dialysis

2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Karla Salas-Gama ◽  
Juan Manuel Díaz ◽  
Jorge Coronado ◽  
Javier Pérez-Bracchiglione ◽  
Carolina Requeijo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Kidney Disease ◽  
Kidney Disease ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Advanced Chronic Kidney Disease ◽  
Patient Decision Aids ◽  
Patient Decision ◽  
Medical Recommendation

scholarly journals A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Patient Decision Aids for Socially Disadvantaged Populations: Update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IDPAS)

2021 ◽  
pp. 0272989X2110203
Author(s):  
Renata W. Yen ◽  
Jenna Smith ◽  
Jaclyn Engel ◽  
Danielle Marie Muscat ◽  
Sian K. Smith ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Relative Risk ◽  
Health Inequalities ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Patient Decision Aids ◽  
Disadvantaged Populations ◽  
Socially Disadvantaged ◽  
Patient Decision ◽  
Intervention Trials

Background The effectiveness of patient decision aids (PtDAs) and other shared decision-making (SDM) interventions for socially disadvantaged populations has not been well studied. Purpose To assess whether PtDAs and other SDM interventions improve outcomes or decrease health inequalities among socially disadvantaged populations and determine the critical features of successful interventions. Data Sources MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane, PsycINFO, and Web of Science from inception to October 2019. Cochrane systematic reviews on PtDAs. Study Selection Randomized controlled trials of PtDAs and SDM interventions that included socially disadvantaged populations. Data Extraction Independent double data extraction using a standardized form and the Template for Intervention Description and Replication checklist. Data Synthesis Twenty-five PtDA and 13 other SDM intervention trials met our inclusion criteria. Compared with usual care, PtDAs improved knowledge (mean difference = 13.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 9.01, 18.82 [I2 = 96%]) and patient-clinician communication (relative risk = 1.62, 95% CI 1.42, 1.84 [I2 = 0%]). PtDAs reduced decisional conflict (mean difference = −9.59; 95% CI −18.94, −0.24 [I2 = 84%]) and the proportion undecided (relative risk = 0.39; 95% CI 0.28, 0.53 [I2 = 75%]). PtDAs did not affect anxiety (standardized mean difference = 0.02, 95% CI −0.22, 0.26 [I2 = 70%]). Only 1 trial looked at clinical outcomes (hemoglobin A1C). Five of the 12 PtDA studies that compared outcomes by disadvantaged standing found that outcomes improved more for socially disadvantaged participants. No evidence indicated which intervention characteristics were most effective. Results were similar for SDM intervention trials. Limitations Sixteen PtDA studies had an overall unclear risk of bias. Heterogeneity was high for most outcomes. Most studies only had short-term follow-up. Conclusions PtDAs led to better outcomes among socially disadvantaged populations but did not reduce health inequalities. We could not determine which intervention features were most effective. [Box: see text]

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

2021 ◽  
pp. 0272989X2110141
Author(s):  
Holly O. Witteman ◽  
Kristin G. Maki ◽  
Gratianne Vaisson ◽  
Jeanette Finderup ◽  
Krystina B. Lewis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Aid ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Rapid Development ◽  
User Involvement ◽  
User Centered Design ◽  
Patient Decision Aid ◽  
Patient Decision Aids ◽  
Patient Decision ◽  
Development Processes ◽  
Systematic Development

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]

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

2021 ◽  
pp. 0272989X2199662
Author(s):  
Tammy C. Hoffmann ◽  
Mina Bakhit ◽  
Marie-Anne Durand ◽  
Lilisbeth Perestelo-Pérez ◽  
Catherine Saunders ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Aid ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Patient Decision Aid ◽  
Patient Decision Aids ◽  
Research Areas ◽  
Patient Decision ◽  
Evidence Quality ◽  
Emerging Issues

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document