The patient decision aid (PDA) is a promising patient engagement tool for use in shared decision making (SDM). Selecting a PDA is an essential precursor to successful SDM implementation. Little is known regarding the organizational stakeholder process for assessing and selecting a PDA. We conducted a qualitative, multicase study within the context of a maternal health decision to identify the criteria used by stakeholders to select a PDA. We further explored the perceived value of PDA certification on PDA selection. We reported the PDA selection criteria within the domains of (1) Design and Functionality, (2) User Fit, (3) Context and Climate, (4) Support, and (5) Strategic Vision and found that certification was perceived to be a valuable screening mechanism for smaller health organizations. Health organizations and researchers may use our PDA selection criteria and conceptual model to plan future deployments of PDAs and patient engagement tools.
AaronsG. A.HurlburtM.HorwitzS. M. (2011). Advancing a conceptual model of evidence-based practice implementation in public service sectors. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 38(1), 4-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-010-0327-7
2.
AlstonC.ElwynG.FowlerF.Kelly HallL.MoultonB.PagetL.ShebelB. H.SingermanR.WalkerJ.WyniaM. K.HendersonD. (2014). Shared decision-making strategies for best care: Patient decision aids. NAM Perspectives, 4(9), Article 201409f. https://doi.org/10.31478/201409f
3.
AtkinsonJ. C.ZellerG. G.ShahC.ValenzaJ. (2002). Electronic patient records for dental school clinics: More than paperless systems. Journal of Dental Education, 66(5), 634-642. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12056768
4.
BowenD.NguyenA. M.LeRougeC.LePoireE.Kwan-GettT. (2021). Factors affecting the initiation of a shared decision making program in obstetric settings. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 17, Article 345. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-017-1511-5
DamschroderL. J.AronD. C.KeithR. E.KirshS. R.AlexanderJ. A.LoweryJ. C. (2009). Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: A consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implementation Science, 4(1), Article 50. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-50
DawesM.SampsonU. (2003). Knowledge management in clinical practice: A systematic review of information seeking behavior in physicians. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 71(1), 9-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1386-5056(03)00023-6
DenzinN. K. (1989). The Research Act (3rd ed.). McGraw Hill.
11.
EbellM. H.SiwekJ.WeissB. D.WoolfS. H.SusmanJ.EwigmanB.BowmanM. (2004). Strength of recommendation taxonomy (SORT): A patient-centered approach to grading evidence in the medical literature. Journal of the American Board of Family Practice, 17(1), 59-67. https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.17.1.59
12.
EisenhardtK. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550. https://doi.org/10.2307/258557
13.
ElwynG.O’ConnorA.StaceyD.VolkR.EdwardsA.CoulterA.ThomsonR.BarrattA.BarryM.BernsteinS.ButowP.ClarkeA.EntwistleV.Feldman-StewartD.Holmes-RovnerM.Llewellyn-ThomasH.MoumjidN.MulleyA.RulandC.. . .WhelanT. (2006). Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. BMJ, 333(7565), Article 417. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38926.629329.AE
14.
GlaserB. G.StraussA. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. AldineTransaction.
15.
GreenhalghT.RobertG.MacfarlaneF.BateP.KyriakidouO. (2004). Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: Systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Quarterly, 82(4), 581-629. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0887-378X.2004.00325.x
16.
KaneH. L.HalpernM. T.SquiersL. B.TreimanK. A.McCormackL. A. (2014). Implementing and evaluating shared decision making in oncology practice. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 64(6), 377-388. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21245
LégaréF.AdekpedjouR.StaceyD.TurcotteS.KryworuchkoJ.GrahamI. D.LyddiattA.PolitiM. C.ThomsonR.ElwynG.Donner-BanzhoffN. (2018). Interventions for increasing the use of shared decision making by healthcare professionals. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006732.pub4
19.
LenertL.DunleaR.Del FiolG.HallL. K. (2014). A model to support shared decision making in electronic health records systems. Medical Decision Making, 34(8), 987-995. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X14550102
20.
LeRougeC.DickhutK.LisettiC.SangameswaranS.MalasanosT. (2016). Engaging adolescents in a computer-based weight management program: avatars and virtual coaches could help. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 23(1), 19-28. https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocv078
21.
LorenziN. M.KouroubaliA.DetmerD. E.BloomrosenM. (2009). How to successfully select and implement electronic health records (EHR) in small ambulatory practice settings. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 9(1), Article 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-9-15
22.
MelnickE. R.LopezK.HessE. P.AbujaradF.BrandtC. A.ShiffmanR. N.PostL. A. (2015). Back to the bedside: Developing a bedside aid for concussion and brain injury decisions in the emergency department. EGEMs, 3(2), Article 1136. https://doi.org/10.13063/2327-9214.1136
23.
MooreJ.HaemerM.MirzaN.Z WeatherallY.HanJ.MangarelliC.HawkinsM. J.XanthakosS.SiegelR. (2019). Pilot testing of a patient decision aid for adolescents with severe obesity in U.S. pediatric weight management programs within the COMPASS Network. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(10), Article 1776. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16101776
SchollI.LarussaA.HahlwegP.KobrinS.ElwynG. (2018). Organizational-and system-level characteristics that influence implementation of shared decision-making and strategies to address them: A scoping review. Implementation Science, 13(40), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-018-0731-z
28.
SchoorelE.VankanE.ScheepersH.AugustijnB.DirksenC.de KoningM.van KuijkS.KweeA.MelmanS.NijhuisJ. G.AardenburgR.de BoerK.HasaartT.MolB.NieuwenhuijzeM.van PampusM.van RoosmalenJ.RoumenF.de VriesR.. . .HermensR. (2014). Involving women in personalised decision-making on mode of delivery after caesarean section: The development and pilot testing of a patient decision aid. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 121(2), 202-209. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.12516
29.
Senate House of Representatives. (2009). Patient protection and affordable care act. 111th Congress HR 3590.
30.
SlawsonD. C.ShaughnessyA. F.BennettJ. H. (1994). Becoming a medical information master: Feeling good about not knowing everything. Journal of Family Practice, 38(5), 505-514.
31.
StaceyD.LégaréF.LewisK.BarryM. J.BennettC. L.EdenK. B.Holmes-RovnerM.Llewellyn-ThomasH.LyddiattA.ThomsonR.TrevenaL. (2017). Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub5
32.
TongA.SainsburyP.CraigJ. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19(6), 349-357. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042
33.
TrevenaL. J.Zikmund-FisherB. J.EdwardsA.GaissmaierW.GalesicM.HanP. K. J.KingJ.LawsonM. L.LinderS. K.LipkusI.OzanneE.PetersE.TimmermansD.WoloshinS. (2013). Presenting quantitative information about decision outcomes: A risk communication primer for patient decision aid developers. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 13(Suppl. 2), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-13-S2-S7
34.
WelchB. M.WileyK.PfliegerL.AchiangiaR.BakerK.Hughes-HalbertC.MorrisonH.SchiffmanJ.DoerrM. (2018). Review and Comparison of Electronic Patient-Facing Family Health History Tools. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 27(2), 381-391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-018-0235-7
35.
YinR. K.DavisD. (2007). Adding new dimensions to case study evaluations: The case of evaluating comprehensive reforms. New Directions for Evaluation, 2007(113), 75-93. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.216
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.
