Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30904876›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Modified Delphi survey for the evidence summarisation of patient decision aids: Study protocol.

Marie-Anne Durand, Michelle D Dannenberg, Catherine H Saunders, Anik M C Giguere, Brian S Alper, Tammy Hoffmann, Lily Perestelo-Pérez, Stephen T Campbell, Glyn Elwyn

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Delivering the unexpected-Information needs for PSA screening from Men's perspective: A qualitative study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021
    Article
  7. Processes for evidence summarization for patient decision aids: A Delphi consensus study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Marie-Anne DurandThe Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Dartmouth College, Lebanon, New Hampshire, USA.
Michelle D DannenbergThe Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Dartmouth College, Lebanon, New Hampshire, USA.
Catherine H SaundersThe Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Dartmouth College, Lebanon, New Hampshire, USA.
Anik M C GiguereUniversite Laval Faculte de medecine, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada.
Brian S AlperDynaMed Plus, EBSCO Health, Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4300-4928
Tammy HoffmannBond University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.
Lily Perestelo-PérezEvaluation Unit of the Canary Islands Health Service, El Rosario, UK.
Stephen T CampbellDartmouth College Geisel School of Medicine, Hanover, New Hampshire, USA.
Glyn ElwynDartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionInformation included in a patient decision aid (PDA) can significantly influence patients' decisions and is, therefore, expected to be evidence-based and rigorously selected and summarised. PDA developers have not yet agreed on a standardised process for the selection and summarisation of the supporting evidence. We intend to generate consensus on a process (and related steps and criteria) for selecting and summarising evidence for PDAs using a modified Delphi survey. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will develop an evidence summarisation process specific to PDA development by using a consensus-based Delphi approach, surveying international experts and stakeholders with two to three rounds. To increase generalisability and acceptability, we will distribute the survey to the following stakeholder groups: PDA developers, researchers with expertise in shared decision making, PDA development and evidence summarisation, members of the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) collaboration, policy makers with expertise in PDA certification and patient stakeholder groups. For each criterion, if at least 80% of survey participants rank the criterion as most important/least important, we will consider that consensus has been achieved. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: It is critical for PDAs to have accurate and trustworthy evidence-based information about the risks and benefits of health treatments and tests, as these decision aids help patients make important choices. We want to generate consensus on an approach for selecting and summarising the evidence included in PDAs, which can be widely implemented by PDA developers. Dartmouth College's Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects approved this protocol. We will publish our results in a peer reviewed journal.

Indexed as

Decision MakingDecision Support TechniquesEvidence-Based MedicinePatient ParticipationAdministrative PersonnelConsensusDelphi TechniqueHumansResearch DesignStakeholder ParticipationSurveys and Questionnairesdecision makingdelphi techniquepatient-centered carepatient preferencesurveys and questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID30904876
PMCPMC6475258

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.