CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 69Patient-Provider Communication in HealthcareHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilityHealth Policy Implementation Science

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 53 of the 53 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Minimum standards for the certification of patient decision support interventions: Feasibility and application

Durand, Marie-Anne, Witt, Jana, Joseph-Williams, Natalie, Newcombe, Robert G., Politi, Mary C., Sivell, Stephanie, Elwyn, Glyn·2015·Patient Education and Counseling
DOI 10.1016/j.pec.2014.12.009
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective Patient decision support interventions are not currently subject to standardized quality control. The current study aims to assess the feasibility of applying a proposed set of minimum standards (previously developed as part of a possible certification process) to a selection of existing patient decision support interventions.Methods A convenience sample of interventions selected from those included in the 2009 Cochrane systematic review of patient decision aids was scored by trained raters using the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) instrument. Scores were then evaluated against the published proposed minimum standards.Results Twenty-five out of thirty included interventions met all qualifying criteria while only three met the proposed certification criteria. The changes required for an intervention to meet the proposed certification standards were relatively minor. There was considerable variation between raters' mean scores.Conclusions Most interventions did not meet the certification criteria due to lack of information on modifiable items such as update policy and funding source.Practice implications Specifying minimum standards for patient decision support interventions is a feasible development. However, it remains unclear whether the minimum standards can be applied to interventions designed for use within clinical encounters and to those that target screening and diagnostic tests.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.pec.2014.12.009

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Barry, 1997, A randomized trial of a multimedia shared decision-making program for men facing a treatment decision for benign prostatic hyperplasia, Dis Manage Clin Outcomes, 1, 5, 10.1016/S1088-3371(96)00004-6 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Durand, M.-A., Witt, J., Joseph-Williams, N., Newcombe, R. G., Politi, M. C., Sivell, S., & Elwyn, G.
Affiliations
  • Dartmouth College (US)
  • Cardiff University (GB)
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
Corresponding author
Elwyn, Glyn
ORCID
Venue
Patient Education and Counseling
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-04
Volume
98
Issue
4
Pages
462-468
ISSN
0738-3991 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.pec.2014.12.009
OpenAlex
W2003841528
Cited by
69
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 1
FWCI
1.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Patient Education and Counseling (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Hertfordshire Research Archive (University of Hertfordshire) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Cardiff University
  • The Informed Medical Decisions Foundation
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
patient decision support, patient decision aids, certification standards, quality standards, inter-rater reliability, feasibility, clinical decision support
MeSH terms
Certification, Decision Making, Decision Support Techniques, Humans, Patient Participation, Quality Control, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review