Cited by 1,824Patient-Provider Communication in HealthcareDelphi Technique in ResearchHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility

Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process

Open access
Elwyn, G.·2006·BMJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To develop a set of quality criteria for patient decision support technologies (decision aids). DESIGN AND SETTING: Two stage web based Delphi process using online rating process to enable international collaboration. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals from four stakeholder groups (researchers, practitioners, patients, policy makers) representing 14 countries reviewed evidence summaries and rated the importance of 80 criteria in 12 quality domains on a 1 to 9 scale. Second round participants received feedback from the first round and repeated their assessment of the 80 criteria plus three new ones. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Aggregate ratings for each criterion calculated using medians weighted to compensate for different numbers in stakeholder groups; criteria rated between 7 and 9 were retained. RESULTS: 212 nominated people were invited to participate. Of those invited, 122 participated in the first round (77 researchers, 21 patients, 10 practitioners, 14 policy makers); 104/122 (85%) participated in the second round. 74 of 83 criteria were retained in the following domains: systematic development process (9/9 criteria); providing information about options (13/13); presenting probabilities (11/13); clarifying and expressing values (3/3); using patient stories (2/5); guiding/coaching (3/5); disclosing conflicts of interest (5/5); providing internet access (6/6); balanced presentation of options (3/3); using plain language (4/6); basing information on up to date evidence (7/7); and establishing effectiveness (8/8). CONCLUSIONS: Criteria were given the highest ratings where evidence existed, and these were retained. Gaps in research were highlighted. Developers, users, and purchasers of patient decision aids now have a checklist for appraising quality. An instrument for measuring quality of decision aids is being developed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.38926.629329.ae

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 42 · Cited by 1,824

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [6]6. Molenaar S, Sprangers MA, Postma-Schuit FC, Rutgers EJ, Noorlander J, Hendricks J, et al. Feasibility and effects of decision aids. Med Decis Making 2000;20:112-27.

Authors
Elwyn, G.
Affiliations
Cardiff University (GB)
Corresponding author
Elwyn, G.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2006-08-26
Volume
333
Issue
7565
Pages
417-0
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2158796716
Cited by
1,824
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 58 · 2025: 93 · 2024: 91 · 2023: 91 · 2022: 102 · 2021: 200 · 2020: 116 · 2019: 124 · 2018: 91 · 2017: 113 · 2016: 112 · 2015: 84 · 2014: 89 · 2013: 79 · 2012: 84
FWCI
101.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (submittedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
Funders
  • Cardiff University
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
Keywords
patient decision aids, quality standards, quality assessment, shared decision-making, stakeholder consensus, Delphi method, quality checklist, plain language, conflict of interest disclosure, patient narratives, evidence-based information, online decision support
MeSH terms
Consensus Statements as Topic, Decision Support Techniques, Delphi Technique, Humans, Patient Participation

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