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.
Highlights
Users of patient decision aids deserve assurance that the processes used to create these tools follow acceptable standards.
Since the last update of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards, principles of user-centered design have been widely adopted by developers.
Developers consistently underreport the involvement of users when describing the development of decision aids.
Templates and a checklist may help developers more fully report on the processes they use in creating these tools.
CoulterAStilwellDKryworuchkoJMullenPDNgCJvan der WeijdenT.A systematic development process for patient decision aids. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13(suppl 2):S2.
2.
Joseph-WilliamsNAbhyankarPBolandL, et al. What works in implementing patient decision aids in routine clinical settings? A rapid realist review and update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Collaboration. Med Decis Making. In press.
3.
VaissonGProvencherTDugasM, et al. User involvement in the design and development of patient decision aids and other personal health tools: a systematic review. Med Decis Making. 2021;41(3):261–74.
4.
SlatteryPSaeriAKBraggeP.Research co-design in health: a rapid overview of reviews. Health Res Policy Syst. 2020;18(1):17.
5.
SepuchaKRAbhyankarPHoffmanAS, et al. Standards for UNiversal reporting of patient Decision Aid Evaluation studies: the development of SUNDAE Checklist. BMJ Qual Saf. 2018;27(5):380–8.
6.
StaceyDSuwalskaVBolandLLewisKBPresseauJThomsonR.Are patient decision aids used in clinical practice after rigorous evaluation? A survey of trial authors. Med Decis Making. 2019;39(7):805–15.
7.
WittemanHOVaissonGProvencherT, et al. An 11-item measure of user- and human-centered design for personal health tools (UCD-11): development and validation. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(3):e15032.
8.
VolkRJLlewellyn-ThomasHStaceyDElwynG.Ten years of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Collaboration: evolution of the core dimensions for assessing the quality of patient decision aids. BMC Med Inform Decis Making. 2013;13, S1. https://https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-13-S2-S1
9.
HarrisPATaylorRMinorBL, et al. The REDCap consortium: Building an international community of software platform partners. J Biomed Inform. 2019;95:103208.
10.
HarrisPATaylorRThielkeRPayneJGonzalezNCondeJG.Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377–81.
11.
BowenSGrahamID.Backwards design or looking sideways? Knowledge translation in the real world: comment on “A call for a backward design to knowledge translation.”Int J Health Policy Manag. 2015;4(8):545–7.
12.
BowenSJGrahamID.From knowledge translation to engaged scholarship: promoting research relevance and utilization. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;94(1, suppl):S3–8.
13.
DannerMGeigerFWehkampK, et al. Making shared decision-making (SDM) a reality: protocol of a large-scale long-term SDM implementation programme at a northern German university hospital. BMJ Open. 2020;10(10):e037575.
14.
GilliesKCampbellMK.Development and evaluation of decision aids for people considering taking part in a clinical trial: a conceptual framework. Trials. 2019;20, 401. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3489-y
15.
AkogluCSteffensenKDDanklK.Design and healthcare collaboration: developing a generic patient decision aid in a Danish hospital context. In: The 21st DMI: Academic Design Management Conference. London: DMI-Design Management Institute; 2018. pp 1350–60.
16.
OllingKBechmannTMadsenPH, et al. Development of a patient decision aid template for use in different clinical settings. Eur J Pers Cent Healthc. 2019;7:50–60.
17.
SteffensenKDVinterMCrugerD, et al. Lessons in integrating shared decision-making into cancer care. J Oncol Pract. 2018;14(4):229.
18.
StaceyDLegareFBolandL, et al. 20th Anniversary Ottawa Decision Support Framework: Part 3 overview of systematic reviews and updated framework. Med Decis Making. 2020;40(3):379–98.
19.
GiguereALegareFGradR, et al. Developing and user-testing decision boxes to facilitate shared decision making in primary care—a study protocol. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2011;11:17.
20.
LawaniMAValeraBFortier-BrochuE, et al. Five shared decision-making tools in 5 months: use of rapid reviews to develop decision boxes for seniors living with dementia and their caregivers. Syst Rev. 2017;6(1):56.
21.
ElwynGLloydAJoseph-WilliamsN, et al. Option Grids: shared decision making made easier. Patient Educ Couns. 2013;90(2):207–12.
22.
StaceyDLudwigCArchambaultP, et al. Feasibility of rapidly developing and widely disseminating patient decision aids to respond to urgent decisional needs due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Med Decis Making. 2021;41(2):233–9.
23.
EnardKRMullenPDKamathGRDixonNMVolkRJ.Are cancer-related decision aids appropriate for socially disadvantaged patients? A systematic review of US randomized controlled trials. BMC Med Inform Decis Making. 2016;16, 64. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-016-0303-6
24.
DugasMTrottierM-EDansokhoSC, et al. Involving members of vulnerable populations in the development of patient decision aids: a mixed methods sequential explanatory study. BMC Med Inform Decis Making. 2017;17, 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-016-0399-8
25.
StaceyDLegareFLewisK, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;4:CD001431.
26.
BansbackNChiuJACarruthersR, et al. Development and usability testing of a patient decision aid for newly diagnosed relapsing multiple sclerosis patients. BMC Neurol. 2019;19, 173. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12883-019-1382-7
27.
BansbackNTrenamanLMacDonaldKV, et al. An individualized patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) based patient decision aid and surgeon report for patients considering total knee arthroplasty: protocol for a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. Bmc Musculoskelet Disord. 2019;20, 89. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-019-2434-2
28.
BarrPJForcinoRCDannenbergMD, et al. Healthcare Options for People Experiencing Depression ((HOPED)-D-star): the development and pilot testing of an encounter-based decision aid for use in primary care. BMJ Open. 2019;9(4):e025375. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025375
29.
GrimmettCBrooksCRecio-SaucedoA, et al. Development of breast cancer choices: a decision support tool for young women with breast cancer deciding whether to have genetic testing for BRCA1/2 mutations. Support Care Cancer. 2019;27(1):297–309.
30.
HahlwegPWitzelIMuellerVElwynGDurandM-ASchollI.Adaptation and qualitative evaluation of encounter decision aids in breast cancer care. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2019;299(4):1141–9.
31.
JacksonBBegunJGrayK, et al. Clinical decision support improves quality of care in patients with ulcerative colitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2019;49(8):1040–51.
32.
LoewenPSBansbackNHicklinJ, et al. Evaluating the Effect of a Patient Decision Aid for Atrial Fibrillation Stroke Prevention Therapy. Ann Pharmacother. 2019;53(7):665–74.
33.
MooreJHaemerMMirzaN, et al. Pilot testing of a patient decision aid for adolescents with severe obesity in US pediatric weight management programs within the COMPASS network. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(10):1776. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16101776
34.
Perestelo-PerezLRivero-SantanaATorres-CastanoA, et al. Effectiveness of a decision aid for promoting colorectal cancer screening in Spain: a randomized trial. BMC Med Inform Decis Making. 2019;19: 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-019-0739-6
35.
ReumkensKTummersMHEGietel-HabetsJJG, et al. The development of an online decision aid to support persons having a genetic predisposition to cancer and their partners during reproductive decision-making: a usability and pilot study. Familial Cancer. 2019;18(1):137–46.
36.
ScaliaPDurandM-AFaberMKremerJASongJElwynG.User-testing an interactive option grid decision aid for prostate cancer screening: lessons to improve usability. BMJ Open. 2019;9(5):e026748. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026748
37.
ShahrzadGNarjesMS.A decision aid to support breast cancer patients. Med Sci. 2019;23(96):238–43.
38.
SquiresJEStaceyDCoughlinM, et al. Patient decision aid for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy for use in the consultation: a feasibility study. Curr Oncol. 2019;26(2):137–48.
39.
van den BergAMAStalmeierPFMSchefferGJHermensRPBucxMJL.Shared decision-making for postoperative analgesia: a semistructured qualitative study. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2019;36(1):25–31.
40.
WoodBTaljaardMEl-KhatibZMcFaulSGrahamIDLittleJ.Development and field testing of a tool to elicit women’s preferences among cervical cancer screening modalities. J Eval Clin Pract. 2019;25(6):911-20. https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.13297.
41.
AgerBJansenJPorterD, et al. Development and pilot testing of a decision aid (DA) for women with early-stage breast cancer considering contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Breast. 2018;40:156–64.
42.
FowlerNRSchonbergMASachsGA, et al. Supporting breast cancer screening decisions for caregivers of older women with dementia: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2018;19:678. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-3039-z
43.
GabelPLarsenMBKirkegaardPEdwardsAAndersenB.The LEAD trial—the effectiveness of a decision aid on decision making among citizens with lower educational attainment who have not participated in FIT-based colorectal cancer screening in Denmark: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2018;19:543. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-2921-z
44.
HarmsenMGSteenbeekMPHoogerbruggeN, et al. A patient decision aid for risk-reducing surgery in premenopausal BRCA1/2 mutation carriers: development process and pilot testing. Health Expectations. 2018;21(3):659–67.
45.
HooiveldTMolenaarJMvan der HeijdeCMMeijmanFJGroenTPVonkP.End-user involvement in developing and field testing an online contraceptive decision aid. Sage Open Med. 2018;6. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050312118809462
46.
KlaassenLDirksenCBoersmaLHovingCGrpBB.Developing an aftercare decision aid; assessing health professionals’ and patients’ preferences. Eur J Cancer Care. 2018;27(2):e12730. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecc.12730.
47.
LewisKBBirnieDCarrollSL, et al. User-centered development of a decision aid for patients facing implantable cardioverter-defibrillator replacement: a mixed-methods study. J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2018;33(5):481–91.
48.
McDonnellKKStrayerSMSercyE, et al. Developing and testing a brief clinic-based lung cancer screening decision aid for primary care settings. Health Expectations. 2018;21(4):796–804.
49.
ProbstMAHessEPBreslinM, et al. Development of a patient decision aid for syncope in the emergency department: the SynDA tool. Acad Emerg Med. 2018;25(4):425–33.
50.
QuigleyMDillonMPFatoneS.Development of shared decision-making resources to help inform difficult healthcare decisions: an example focused on dysvascular partial foot and transtibial amputations. Prosthetics Orthotics Int. 2018;42(4):378–86.
51.
RobertsonEGWakefieldCECohnRJO’BrienTZieglerDSFardellJE.The development of delta: using agile to develop a decision aid for pediatric oncology clinical trial enrollment. JMIR Res Protoc. 2018;7(5):e119 https://doi.org/10.2196/resprot.9258.
52.
Santerre-TheilABouchardKSt-PierreD, et al. Development of a tool to guide parents carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation share genetic results with underage children. J Cancer Educ. 2018;33(3):569–75.
53.
ScaliaPElwynGKremerJFaberMDurandM-A.Assessing preference shift and effects on patient knowledge and decisional conflict: cross-sectional study of an interactive prostate-specific antigen test patient decision aid. JMIR Cancer. 2018;4(2):e11102 https://doi.org/10.2196/11102
54.
SowanAKBerayaARCarrolaAReedCCMatthewsSVMoodleyT.Developing, implementing, and evaluating a multimedia patient decision aid program to reform the informed consent process of a peripherally inserted central venous catheter procedure: protocol for quality improvement. JMIR Res Protoc. 2018;7(12):e10709 https://doi.org/10.2196/10709
55.
WillisAMSmithSKMeiserB, et al. Development and pilot testing of a decision aid for genomic research participants notified of clinically actionable research findings for cancer risk. J Genet Counsel. 2018;27(5):1055–66.
56.
CoxeterPDDel MarCBHoffmannTC.Preparing parents to make an informed choice about antibiotic use for common acute respiratory infections in children: a randomised trial of brief decision aids in a hypothetical scenario. Patient Patient Centered Outcomes Res. 2017;10(4):463–74.
57.
EtnelJRGvan DijkAPJKluinJ, et al. Development of an online, evidence-based patient information portal for congenital heart disease: a pilot study. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2017;4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2017.00025
58.
GagneMELegareFMoisanJBouletL-P.Impact of adding a decision aid to patient education in adults with asthma: a randomized clinical trial. PLoS One. 2017;12(1): e0170055. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170055
59.
JonesGLHughesJMahmoodiN, et al. Observational study of the development and evaluation of a fertility preservation patient decision aid for teenage and adult women diagnosed with cancer: the Cancer, Fertility and Me research protocol. BMJ Open. 2017;7(3):e013219. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013219
60.
Malloy-WeirLJKirkA.Development and pilot testing of a decision aid for the initiation of antipsychotic medications in persons with dementia in long-term care using a systematic approach: a study protocol. BMJ Open. 2017;7(10)7:e018769. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018769
61.
MooreGPLemyreBDabovalT, et al. Field testing of decision coaching with a decision aid for parents facing extreme prematurity. J Perinatol. 2017;37(6):728–34.
62.
NotaIDrossaertCHCMelissantHC, et al. Development of a web-based patient decision aid for initiating disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs using user-centred design methods. BMC Med Inform Decis Making. 2017;17:51. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-017-0433-5
63.
Perestelo-PerezLRivero-SantanaAAntonio Sanchez-AfonsoJ, et al. Effectiveness of a decision aid for patients with depression: a randomized controlled trial. Health Expectations. 2017;20(5):1096–105.
64.
SajeevMCohenJWakefieldCEFardellJECohnRJ.Decision aid for nutrition support in pediatric oncology: a pilot study. J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2017;41(8):1336–47.
65.
SavelbergWvan der WeijdenTBoersmaLSmidtMWillekensCMoserA.Developing a patient decision aid for the treatment of women with early stage breast cancer: the struggle between simplicity and complexity. BMC Med Inform Decis Making. 2017;17:112. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-017-0505-6
66.
ThompsonWFarrellBWelchVTugwellPBjerreLM.Should I continue taking my acid reflux medication? Design of a pilot before/after study evaluating a patient decision aid. Can Pharm J. 2017;150(1):19–23.
67.
Toledo-ChavarriARueMCodern-BoveN, et al. A qualitative study on a decision aid for breast cancer screening: views from women and health professionals. Eur J Cancer Care. 2017;:e12660. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecc.12660
68.
Al-ItejawiHHMvan Uden-KraanCFVisAN, et al. Development of a patient decision aid for the treatment of localised prostate cancer: a participatory design approach. J Clin Nurs. 2016;25(7–8):1131–44.
69.
BeachLBWildMRamachandranGIkizlerHOCavanaughKL.Protocol of a randomized controlled trial of an erythropoietin stimulating agent decision aid for anemia treatment in kidney disease. BMC Nephrol. 2016;17:86. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12882-016-0301-z
70.
BeaulacJWestmacottRWalkerJRVardanyanG; Mobilizing Minds Research Group. Primary care provider views about usefulness and dissemination of a web-based depression treatment information decision aid. J Med Internet Res. 2016;18(6):e153 https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.5458
71.
BirchPAdamSBansbackN, et al. DECIDE: a decision support tool to facilitate parents’ choices regarding genome-wide sequencing. J Genet Counsel. 2016;25(6):1298–308.
72.
DurandM-AAlamSGrandeSWElwynG.‘Much clearer with pictures’: using community-based participatory research to design and test a Picture Option Grid for underserved patients with breast cancer. BMJ Open. 2016;6(2):e010008. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010008
73.
HiligsmannMRondaGvan der WeijdenTBoonenA.The development of a personalized patient education tool for decision making for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Osteoporosis Int. 2016;27(8):2489–96.
74.
MaguireEHongPRitchieKMeierJArchibaldKChorneyJ.Decision aid prototype development for parents considering adenotonsillectomy for their children with sleep disordered breathing. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016;45:57. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40463-016-0170-2
75.
MarshmanZEddaikiABekkerHLBensonPE.Development and evaluation of a patient decision aid for young people and parents considering fixed orthodontic appliances. J Orthodontics. 2016;43(4):276–87.
76.
PatzerREBasuMLarsenCP, et al. iChoose Kidney: a clinical decision aid for kidney transplantation versus dialysis treatment. Transplantation. 2016;100(3):630–9.
77.
Perestelo-PerezLRivero-SantanaABoronatM, et al. Effect of the statin choice encounter decision aid in Spanish patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized trial. Patient Educ Counsel. 2016;99(2):295–9.
78.
StaceyDLegareFLyddiattA, et al. Translating evidence to facilitate shared decision making: development and usability of a consult decision aid prototype. Patient Patient Centered Outcomes Res. 2016;9(6):571–82.
79.
TrenamanLMunroSAlmeidaFAyasNHicklinJBansbackN.Development of a patient decision aid prototype for adults with obstructive sleep apnea. Sleep Breathing. 2016;20(2):653–61.
80.
WinterbottomAEGavaruzziTMooneyA, et al. Patient acceptability of the Yorkshire Dialysis Decision Aid (YODDA) booklet: a prospective non-randomized comparison study across 6 predialysis services. Peritoneal Dialysis Int. 2016;36(4):374–81.
81.
ZdenkowskiNButowPHutchingsEDouglasCCollJRBoyleFM.A decision aid for women considering neoadjuvant systemic therapy for operable invasive breast cancer: development and protocol of a phase II evaluation study (ANZ1301 DOMINO). JMIR Res Protoc. 2016;5(2):e88 https://doi.org/10.2196/resprot.5641
82.
FeenstraBLawsonMLHarrisonDBolandLStaceyD.Decision coaching using the Ottawa family decision guide with parents and their children: a field testing study. BMC Med Inform Decis Making. 2015;15:5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-014-0126-2
83.
KaiserKChengWYJensenS, et al. Development of a shared decision-making tool to assist patients and clinicians with decisions on oral anticoagulant treatment for atrial fibrillation. Curr Med Res Opin. 2015;31(12):2261–72.
84.
ShillingtonACColNBaileyRAJewellMA.Development of a patient decision aid for type 2 diabetes mellitus for patients not achieving glycemic control on metformin alone. Patient Preference Adherence. 2015;9:609–17.
85.
ShortenAFagerlinAIlluzziJ, et al. Developing an Internet-based decision aid for women choosing between vaginal birth after cesarean and planned repeat cesarean. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2015;60(4):390–400.
86.
ThompsonJSMatlockDDMcIlvennanCKJenkinsARAllenLA.Development of a decision aid for patients with advanced heart failure considering a destination therapy left ventricular assist device. JACC Heart Failure. 2015;3(12):965–76.
87.
BartonJLKoenigCJEvans-YoungG, et al. The design of a low literacy decision aid about rheumatoid arthritis medications developed in three languages for use during the clinical encounter. BMC Med Inform Decis Making. 2014;14:104. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-014-0104-8
88.
LauYKCaverlyTJCherngST, et al. Development and validation of a personalized, web-based decision aid for lung cancer screening using mixed methods: a study protocol. JMIR Res Protoc. 2014;3(4):e78 https://doi.org/10.2196/resprot.4039
89.
NgCJMathersNBradleyAColwellB.A ‘combined framework’ approach to developing a patient decision aid: the PANDAs model. BMC Health Services Res. 2014;14:503. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-014-0503-7
90.
SchoorelENCVankanEScheepersHCj, et al. Involving women in personalised decision-making on mode of delivery after caesarean section: the development and pilot testing of a patient decision aid. BJOG. 2014;121(2):202–9.
91.
VolkRJLinderSKLealVB, et al. Feasibility of a patient decision aid about lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography. Prev Med. 2014;62:60–3.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
