ArticlePloS one2009
Assessing the quality of decision support technologies using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards instrument (IPDASi).
Article in PloS one, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 223 papers, 17 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
223 citing papers in PubMed, 17 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Utility Values of Health Status in Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review.Value in health regional issues · 2025Pooled it
- Impact of Online Interactive Decision Tools on Women's Decision-Making Regarding Breast Cancer Screening: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Use of digital patient decision-support tools for atrial fibrillation treatments: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Feasibility and effectiveness of tools that support communication and decision making in life-prolonging treatments for patients in hospital: a systematic review.BMJ supportive & palliative care · 2022Pooled it
- Communication in decision aids for stage I-III colorectal cancer patients: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2021Pooled it
- Kidney disease pathways, options and decisions: an environmental scan of international patient decision aids.Nephrology, dialysis, transplantation : official publication of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association - European Renal Association · 2020Pooled it
- Assessing the quality and communicative aspects of patient decision aids for early-stage breast cancer treatment: a systematic review.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2019Pooled it
- Communicating prognosis to women with early breast cancer - overview of prediction tools and the development and pilot testing of a decision aid.BMC health services research · 2019Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Bring on the Machines: Could Machine Learning Improve the Quality of Patient Education Materials? A Systematic Search and Rapid Review.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2018Pooled it
- Values and preferences of men for undergoing prostate-specific antigen screening for prostate cancer: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2018Pooled it
- What information is used in treatment decision aids? A systematic review of the types of evidence populating health decision aids.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2017Pooled it
- Decision aids for people considering taking part in clinical trials.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015Pooled it
- Interventions to support children's engagement in health-related decisions: a systematic review.BMC pediatrics · 2014Pooled it
- Factors explaining the heterogeneity of effects of patient decision aids on knowledge of outcome probabilities: a systematic review sub-analysis.Systematic reviews · 2013Pooled it
- Addressing health literacy in patient decision aids.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2013Pooled it
- "Many miles to go …": a systematic review of the implementation of patient decision support interventions into routine clinical practice.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2013Pooled it
- Facilitators and barriers to the use of a personalised digital decision aid in total knee replacement consultations: insights from patients and orthopaedic surgeons - an interview study.BMC health services research · 2025Trial
- Evaluation of a Digital Decision Aid for Knee Replacement Surgery.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2024Trial
- A randomized controlled trial on the effects of decision aids for choosing discharge destinations of older stroke patients.PloS one · 2024Trial
163 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
24 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo describe the development, validation and inter-rater reliability of an instrument to measure the quality of patient decision support technologies (decision aids).
designScale development study, involving construct, item and scale development, validation and reliability testing.
settingThere has been increasing use of decision support technologies--adjuncts to the discussions clinicians have with patients about difficult decisions. A global interest in developing these interventions exists among both for-profit and not-for-profit organisations. It is therefore essential to have internationally accepted standards to assess the quality of their development, process, content, potential bias and method of field testing and evaluation.
methodsScale development study, involving construct, item and scale development, validation and reliability testing.
participantsTwenty-five researcher-members of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Collaboration worked together to develop the instrument (IPDASi). In the fourth Stage (reliability study), eight raters assessed thirty randomly selected decision support technologies.
resultsIPDASi measures quality in 10 dimensions, using 47 items, and provides an overall quality score (scaled from 0 to 100) for each intervention. Overall IPDASi scores ranged from 33 to 82 across the decision support technologies sampled (n = 30), enabling discrimination. The inter-rater intraclass correlation for the overall quality score was 0.80. Correlations of dimension scores with the overall score were all positive (0.31 to 0.68). Cronbach's alpha values for the 8 raters ranged from 0.72 to 0.93. Cronbach's alphas based on the dimension means ranged from 0.50 to 0.81, indicating that the dimensions, although well correlated, measure different aspects of decision support technology quality. A short version (19 items) was also developed that had very similar mean scores to IPDASi and high correlation between short score and overall score 0.87 (CI 0.79 to 0.92).
conclusionsThis work demonstrates that IPDASi has the ability to assess the quality of decision support technologies. The existing IPDASi provides an assessment of the quality of a DST's components and will be used as a tool to provide formative advice to DSTs developers and summative assessments for those who want to compare their tools against an existing benchmark.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.