1
|
Chow AJ, Iverson R, Lamoureux M, Tingley K, Jordan I, Pallone N, Smith M, Al-Baldawi Z, Chakraborty P, Brehaut J, Chan A, Cohen E, Dyack S, Gillis LJ, Goobie S, Graham ID, Greenberg CR, Grimshaw JM, Hayeems RZ, Jain-Ghai S, Jolly A, Khangura S, MacKenzie JJ, Major N, Mitchell JJ, Nicholls SG, Pender A, Potter M, Prasad C, Prosser LA, Schulze A, Siriwardena K, Sparkes R, Speechley K, Stockler S, Taljaard M, Teitelbaum M, Trakadis Y, van Karnebeek C, Walia JS, Wilson BJ, Wilson K, Potter BK. Families' healthcare experiences for children with inherited metabolic diseases: protocol for a mixed methods cohort study. BMJ Open 2022; 12:e055664. [PMID: 35193919 PMCID: PMC8867352 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-055664] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/02/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Children with inherited metabolic diseases (IMDs) often have complex and intensive healthcare needs and their families face challenges in receiving high-quality, family centred health services. Improvement in care requires complex interventions involving multiple components and stakeholders, customised to specific care contexts. This study aims to comprehensively understand the healthcare experiences of children with IMDs and their families across Canada. METHODS AND ANALYSIS A two-stage explanatory sequential mixed methods design will be used. Stage 1: quantitative data on healthcare networks and encounter experiences will be collected from 100 parent/guardians through a care map, 2 baseline questionnaires and 17 weekly diaries over 5-7 months. Care networks will be analysed using social network analysis. Relationships between demographic or clinical variables and ratings of healthcare experiences across a range of family centred care dimensions will be analysed using generalised linear regression. Other quantitative data related to family experiences and healthcare experiences will be summarised descriptively. Ongoing analysis of quantitative data and purposive, maximum variation sampling will inform sample selection for stage 2: a subset of stage 1 participants will participate in one-on-one videoconference interviews to elaborate on the quantitative data regarding care networks and healthcare experiences. Interview data will be analysed thematically. Qualitative and quantitative data will be merged during analysis to arrive at an enhanced understanding of care experiences. Quantitative and qualitative data will be combined and presented narratively using a weaving approach (jointly on a theme-by-theme basis) and visually in a side-by-side joint display. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION The study protocol and procedures were approved by the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario's Research Ethics Board, the University of Ottawa Research Ethics Board and the research ethics boards of each participating study centre. Findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific conferences.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrea J Chow
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Ryan Iverson
- Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | | | - Kylie Tingley
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | | | - Nicole Pallone
- Patient Partner, Canadian PKU & Allied Disorders Inc, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Maureen Smith
- Patient Partner, Canadian Organization for Rare Disorders, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Zobaida Al-Baldawi
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Pranesh Chakraborty
- Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
- Department of Pediatrics, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Jamie Brehaut
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Alicia Chan
- Department of Medical Genetics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
| | - Eyal Cohen
- Department of Pediatrics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Division of Pediatric Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Sarah Dyack
- Division of Medical Genetics, Department of Pediatrics, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
| | - Lisa Jane Gillis
- Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins All Children's Hospital, St Petersburg, Florida, USA
| | - Sharan Goobie
- Division of Medical Genetics, Department of Pediatrics, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
| | - Ian D Graham
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Cheryl R Greenberg
- Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, Max Rady College of Medicine, Department of Pediatrics and Child Health, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
- Children's Hospital Research Institute of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
| | - Jeremy M Grimshaw
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
- Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Robin Z Hayeems
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Shailly Jain-Ghai
- Department of Medical Genetics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
| | - Ann Jolly
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
- Contagion Consulting Group, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Sara Khangura
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Jennifer J MacKenzie
- Hamilton Health Sciences, McMaster Children's Hospital, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Nathalie Major
- Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
- Department of Pediatrics, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - John J Mitchell
- Division of Pediatric Endocrinology, Department of Pediatrics, Montreal Children's Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - Stuart G Nicholls
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
- Ottawa Methods Centre, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Amy Pender
- Hamilton Health Sciences, McMaster Children's Hospital, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Murray Potter
- Hamilton Health Sciences, McMaster Children's Hospital, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
- Department of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Chitra Prasad
- Department of Pediatrics, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
| | - Lisa A Prosser
- Department of Pediatrics, Susan B. Meister Child Health Evaluation and Research Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - Andreas Schulze
- Department of Pediatrics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Department of Biochemistry, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Clinical and Metabolic Genetics, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Komudi Siriwardena
- Department of Medical Genetics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
| | - Rebecca Sparkes
- Departments of Medical Genetics and Pediatrics, Alberta Children's Hospital, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
| | - Kathy Speechley
- Department of Pediatrics, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
| | - Sylvia Stockler
- Department of Pediatrics, BC Children's Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Monica Taljaard
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Mari Teitelbaum
- Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Yannis Trakadis
- Department of Specialized Medicine, Division of Medical Genetics, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - Clara van Karnebeek
- Department of Pediatrics, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Gelderland, The Netherlands
- Department of Pediatrics, British Columbia Children's Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Jagdeep S Walia
- Medical Genetics, Department of Pediatrics, Kingston Health Sciences Centre, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
- Department of Pediatrics, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
| | - Brenda J Wilson
- Faculty of Medicine Division of Community Health and Humanities, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada
| | - Kumanan Wilson
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
- Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
- Bruyere Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Beth K Potter
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Worthington HV, Khangura S, Seal K, Mierzwinski-Urban M, Veitz-Keenan A, Sahrmann P, Schmidlin PR, Davis D, Iheozor-Ejiofor Z, Rasines Alcaraz MG. Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent posterior teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 8:CD005620. [PMID: 34387873 PMCID: PMC8407050 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd005620.pub3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/28/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Traditionally, amalgam has been used for filling cavities in posterior teeth, and it continues to be the restorative material of choice in some low- and middle-income countries due to its effectiveness and relatively low cost. However, there are concerns over the use of amalgam restorations (fillings) with regard to mercury release in the body and the environmental impact of mercury disposal. Dental composite resin materials are an aesthetic alternative to amalgam, and their mechanical properties have developed sufficiently to make them suitable for restoring posterior teeth. Nevertheless, composite resin materials may have potential for toxicity to human health and the environment. The United Nations Environment Programme has established the Minamata Convention on Mercury, which is an international treaty that aims "to protect the [sic] human health and the environment from anthropogenic emissions and releases of mercury and mercury compounds". It entered into force in August 2017, and as of February 2021 had been ratified by 127 governments. Ratification involves committing to the adoption of at least two of nine proposed measures to phase down the use of mercury, including amalgam in dentistry. In light of this, we have updated a review originally published in 2014, expanding the scope of the review by undertaking an additional search for harms outcomes. Our review synthesises the results of studies that evaluate the long-term effectiveness and safety of amalgam versus composite resin restorations, and evaluates the level of certainty we can have in that evidence. OBJECTIVES To examine the effects (i.e. efficacy and safety) of direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings. SEARCH METHODS An information specialist searched five bibliographic databases up to 16 February 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies SELECTION CRITERIA: To assess efficacy, we included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing dental composite resin with amalgam restorations in permanent posterior teeth that assessed restoration failure or survival at follow-up of at least three years. To assess safety, we sought non-randomised studies in addition to RCTs that directly compared composite resin and amalgam restorative materials and measured toxicity, sensitivity, allergy, or injury. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS We included a total of eight studies in this updated review, all of which were RCTs. Two studies used a parallel-group design, and six used a split-mouth design. We judged all of the included studies to be at high risk of bias due to lack of blinding and issues related to unit of analysis. We identified one new trial since the previous version of this review (2014), as well as eight additional papers that assessed safety, all of which related to the two parallel-group studies that were already included in the review. For our primary meta-analyses, we combined data from the two parallel-group trials, which involved 1645 composite restorations and 1365 amalgam restorations in 921 children. We found low-certainty evidence that composite resin restorations had almost double the risk of failure compared to amalgam restorations (risk ratio (RR) 1.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.52 to 2.35; P < 0.001), and were at much higher risk of secondary caries (RR 2.14, 95% CI 1.67 to 2.74; P < 0.001). We found low-certainty evidence that composite resin restorations were not more likely to result in restoration fracture (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.64; P = 0.66). Six trials used a split-mouth design. We considered these studies separately, as their reliability was compromised due to poor reporting, unit of analysis errors, and variability in methods and findings. Subgroup analysis showed that the findings were consistent with the results of the parallel-group studies. Three trials investigated possible harms of dental restorations. Higher urinary mercury levels were reported amongst children with amalgam restorations in two trials, but the levels were lower than what is known to be toxic. Some differences between amalgam and composite resin groups were observed on certain measures of renal, neuropsychological, and psychosocial function, physical development, and postoperative sensitivity; however, no consistent or clinically important harms were found. We considered that the vast number of comparisons made false-positive results likely. There was no evidence of differences between the amalgam and composite resin groups in neurological symptoms, immune function, and urinary porphyrin excretion. The evidence is of very low certainty, with most harms outcomes reported in only one trial. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Low-certainty evidence suggests that composite resin restorations may have almost double the failure rate of amalgam restorations. The risk of restoration fracture does not seem to be higher with composite resin restorations, but there is a much higher risk of developing secondary caries. Very low-certainty evidence suggests that there may be no clinically important differences in the safety profile of amalgam compared with composite resin dental restorations. This review supports the utility of amalgam restorations, and the results may be particularly useful in parts of the world where amalgam is still the material of choice to restore posterior teeth with proximal caries. Of note, however, is that composite resin materials have undergone important improvements in the years since the trials informing the primary analyses for this review were conducted. The global phase-down of dental amalgam via the Minamata Convention on Mercury is an important consideration when deciding between amalgam and composite resin dental materials. The choice of which dental material to use will depend on shared decision-making between dental providers and patients in the clinic setting, and local directives and protocols.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Helen V Worthington
- Cochrane Oral Health, Division of Dentistry, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Sara Khangura
- Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), Ottawa, Canada
| | - Kelsey Seal
- Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), Ottawa, Canada
| | | | - Analia Veitz-Keenan
- Department of Oral Maxillofacial Pathology, Radiology and Medicine, New York University College of Dentistry, New York, USA
| | - Philipp Sahrmann
- Clinic of Conservative and Preventive Dentistry, Center for Dental and Oral Medicine and Maxillo-Facial Surgery, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Patrick Roger Schmidlin
- Clinic of Conservative and Preventive Dentistry, Center for Dental and Oral Medicine and Maxillo-Facial Surgery, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Dell Davis
- Texas Medical Center Library, Houston Academy of Medicine, Houston, USA
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND Rapid reviews have emerged as a streamlined approach to synthesizing evidence - typically for informing emergent decisions faced by decision makers in health care settings. Although there is growing use of rapid review 'methods', and proliferation of rapid review products, there is a dearth of published literature on rapid review methodology. This paper outlines our experience with rapidly producing, publishing and disseminating evidence summaries in the context of our Knowledge to Action (KTA) research program. METHODS The KTA research program is a two-year project designed to develop and assess the impact of a regional knowledge infrastructure that supports evidence-informed decision making by regional managers and stakeholders. As part of this program, we have developed evidence summaries - our form of rapid review - which have come to be a flagship component of this project. Our eight-step approach for producing evidence summaries has been developed iteratively, based on evidence (where available), experience and knowledge user feedback. The aim of our evidence summary approach is to deliver quality evidence that is both timely and user-friendly. RESULTS From November 2009 to March 2011 we have produced 11 evidence summaries on a diverse range of questions identified by our knowledge users. Topic areas have included questions of clinical effectiveness to questions on health systems and/or health services. Knowledge users have reported evidence summaries to be of high value in informing their decisions and initiatives. We continue to experiment with incorporating more of the established methods of systematic reviews, while maintaining our capacity to deliver a final product in a timely manner. CONCLUSIONS The evolution of the KTA rapid review evidence summaries has been a positive one. We have developed an approach that appears to be addressing a need by knowledge users for timely, user-friendly, and trustworthy evidence and have transparently reported these methods here for the wider rapid review and scientific community.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sara Khangura
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, Box 208, Ottawa, Ontario, K1H 8L6, Canada
| | - Kristin Konnyu
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, Box 208, Ottawa, Ontario, K1H 8L6, Canada
| | - Rob Cushman
- Champlain Local Health Integration Network, 1900 City Park Drive, Suite 204, Ottawa, Ontario, K1J 1A3, Canada
| | - Jeremy Grimshaw
- Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa, 451 Smyth Road, Room 3105, Ottawa, Ontario, K1H 8M5, Canada
| | - David Moher
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, Box 208, Ottawa, Ontario, K1H 8L6, Canada
- Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa, 451 Smyth Road, Room 3105, Ottawa, Ontario, K1H 8M5, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
O'Connor AM, Bennett CL, Stacey D, Barry M, Col NF, Eden KB, Entwistle VA, Fiset V, Holmes-Rovner M, Khangura S, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Rovner D. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009:CD001431. [PMID: 19588325 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd001431.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 408] [Impact Index Per Article: 27.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Decision aids prepare people to participate in 'close call' decisions that involve weighing benefits, harms, and scientific uncertainty. OBJECTIVES To conduct a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of decision aids for people facing difficult treatment or screening decisions. SEARCH STRATEGY We searched MEDLINE (Ovid) (1966 to July 2006); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library; 2006, Issue 2); CINAHL (Ovid) (1982 to July 2006); EMBASE (Ovid) (1980 to July 2006); and PsycINFO (Ovid) (1806 to July 2006). We contacted researchers active in the field up to December 2006. There were no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA We included published RCTs of interventions designed to aid patients' decision making by providing information about treatment or screening options and their associated outcomes, compared to no intervention, usual care, and alternate interventions. We excluded studies in which participants were not making an active treatment or screening decision, or if the study's intervention was not available to determine that it met the minimum criteria to qualify as a patient decision aid. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently screened abstracts for inclusion, and extracted data from included studies using standardized forms. The primary outcomes focused on the effectiveness criteria of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration: attributes of the decision and attributes of the decision process. We considered other behavioural, health, and health system effects as secondary outcomes. We pooled results of RCTs using mean differences (MD) and relative risks (RR) using a random effects model. MAIN RESULTS This update added 25 new RCTs, bringing the total to 55. Thirty-eight (69%) used at least one measure that mapped onto an IPDAS effectiveness criterion: decision attributes: knowledge scores (27 trials); accurate risk perceptions (11 trials); and value congruence with chosen option (4 trials); and decision process attributes: feeling informed (15 trials) and feeling clear about values (13 trials).This review confirmed the following findings from the previous (2003) review. Decision aids performed better than usual care interventions in terms of: a) greater knowledge (MD 15.2 out of 100; 95% CI 11.7 to 18.7); b) lower decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -8.3 of 100; 95% CI -11.9 to -4.8); c) lower decisional conflict related to feeling unclear about personal values (MD -6.4; 95% CI -10.0 to -2.7); d) reduced the proportion of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.6; 95% CI 0.5 to 0.8); and e) reduced proportion of people who remained undecided post-intervention (RR 0.5; 95% CI 0.3 to 0.8). When simpler decision aids were compared to more detailed decision aids, the relative improvement was significant in knowledge (MD 4.6 out of 100; 95% CI 3.0 to 6.2) and there was some evidence of greater agreement between values and choice.In this review, we were able to explore the use of probabilities in decision aids. Exposure to a decision aid with probabilities resulted in a higher proportion of people with accurate risk perceptions (RR 1.6; 95% CI 1.4 to 1.9). The effect was stronger when probabilities were measured quantitatively (RR 1.8; 95% CI 1.4 to 2.3) versus qualitatively (RR 1.3; 95% CI 1.1 to 1.5).As in the previous review, exposure to decision aids continued to demonstrate reduced rates of: elective invasive surgery in favour of conservative options, decision aid versus usual care (RR 0.8; 95% CI 0.6 to 0.9); and use of menopausal hormones, detailed versus simple aid (RR 0.7; 95% CI 0.6 to 1.0). There is now evidence that exposure to decision aids results in reduced PSA screening, decision aid versus usual care (RR 0.8; 95% CI 0.7 to 1.0) . For other decisions, the effect on decisions remains variable.As in the previous review, decision aids are no better than comparisons in affecting satisfaction with decision making, anxiety, and health outcomes. The effects of decision aids on other outcomes (patient-practitioner communication, consultation length, continuance, resource use) were inconclusive.There were no trials evaluating the IPDAS decision process criteria relating to helping patients to recognize a decision needs to be made, understand that values affect the decision, or discuss values with the practitioner. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Patient decision aids increase people's involvement and are more likely to lead to informed values-based decisions; however, the size of the effect varies across studies. Decision aids have a variable effect on decisions. They reduce the use of discretionary surgery without apparent adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. The degree of detail patient decision aids require for positive effects on decision quality should be explored. The effects on continuance with chosen option, patient-practitioner communication, consultation length, and cost-effectiveness need further evaluation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Annette M O'Connor
- Professor, School of Nursing, Department of Epidemiology, University of Ottawa, Senior Scientist, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Health Research Institute, 1053 Carling Avenue, (ASB 2-008), Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1Y 4E9
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Elwyn G, O'Connor AM, Bennett C, Newcombe RG, Politi M, Durand MA, Drake E, Joseph-Williams N, Khangura S, Saarimaki A, Sivell S, Stiel M, Bernstein SJ, Col N, Coulter A, Eden K, Härter M, Rovner MH, Moumjid N, Stacey D, Thomson R, Whelan T, van der Weijden T, Edwards A. Assessing the quality of decision support technologies using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards instrument (IPDASi). PLoS One 2009; 4:e4705. [PMID: 19259269 PMCID: PMC2649534 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0004705] [Citation(s) in RCA: 332] [Impact Index Per Article: 22.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/10/2008] [Accepted: 10/28/2008] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
Objectives To describe the development, validation and inter-rater reliability of an instrument to measure the quality of patient decision support technologies (decision aids). Design Scale development study, involving construct, item and scale development, validation and reliability testing. Setting There has been increasing use of decision support technologies – adjuncts to the discussions clinicians have with patients about difficult decisions. A global interest in developing these interventions exists among both for-profit and not-for-profit organisations. It is therefore essential to have internationally accepted standards to assess the quality of their development, process, content, potential bias and method of field testing and evaluation. Methods Scale development study, involving construct, item and scale development, validation and reliability testing. Participants Twenty-five researcher-members of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Collaboration worked together to develop the instrument (IPDASi). In the fourth Stage (reliability study), eight raters assessed thirty randomly selected decision support technologies. Results IPDASi measures quality in 10 dimensions, using 47 items, and provides an overall quality score (scaled from 0 to 100) for each intervention. Overall IPDASi scores ranged from 33 to 82 across the decision support technologies sampled (n = 30), enabling discrimination. The inter-rater intraclass correlation for the overall quality score was 0.80. Correlations of dimension scores with the overall score were all positive (0.31 to 0.68). Cronbach's alpha values for the 8 raters ranged from 0.72 to 0.93. Cronbach's alphas based on the dimension means ranged from 0.50 to 0.81, indicating that the dimensions, although well correlated, measure different aspects of decision support technology quality. A short version (19 items) was also developed that had very similar mean scores to IPDASi and high correlation between short score and overall score 0.87 (CI 0.79 to 0.92). Conclusions This work demonstrates that IPDASi has the ability to assess the quality of decision support technologies. The existing IPDASi provides an assessment of the quality of a DST's components and will be used as a tool to provide formative advice to DSTs developers and summative assessments for those who want to compare their tools against an existing benchmark.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Glyn Elwyn
- Department of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Medicine and the School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|