Primary Prevention of Ovarian Cancer: A Patient Decision Aid for Opportunistic Salpingectomy

2022 ◽  
Vol 77 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-20
Author(s):  
Laura A. M. Van Lieshout ◽  
Malou E. Gelderblom ◽  
Joanne A. De Hullu ◽  
Regina The ◽  
Alexandra A. Van Ginkel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Primary Prevention ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Patient Decision Aid ◽  
Patient Decision ◽  
Opportunistic Salpingectomy

scholarly journals Primary prevention of ovarian cancer: a patient decision aid for opportunistic salpingectomy

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura A.M. van Lieshout ◽  
Malou E. Gelderblom ◽  
Joanne A. de Hullu ◽  
Regina The ◽  
Alexandra A. van Ginkel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Primary Prevention ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Patient Decision Aid ◽  
Patient Decision ◽  
Opportunistic Salpingectomy

scholarly journals 343 Primary prevention of ovarian cancer: a patients decision aid for opportunistic salpingectomy

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
M Gelderblom ◽  
L Van Lieshout ◽  
J De Hullu ◽  
R The ◽  
A Van Ginkel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Primary Prevention ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Opportunistic Salpingectomy

scholarly journals Evaluation of a patient decision aid for BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant carriers choosing an ovarian cancer prevention strategy

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miranda P. Steenbeek ◽  
Majke H.D. van Bommel ◽  
Marline G. Harmsen ◽  
Nicoline Hoogerbrugge ◽  
Helena C. van Doorn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Cancer Prevention ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Pathogenic Variant ◽  
Prevention Strategy ◽  
Patient Decision Aid ◽  
Patient Decision

scholarly journals Systematic Development of Patient Decision Aids: An Update from the IPDAS Collaboration

2021 ◽  
pp. 0272989X2110141
Author(s):  
Holly O. Witteman ◽  
Kristin G. Maki ◽  
Gratianne Vaisson ◽  
Jeanette Finderup ◽  
Krystina B. Lewis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Aid ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Rapid Development ◽  
User Involvement ◽  
User Centered Design ◽  
Patient Decision Aid ◽  
Patient Decision Aids ◽  
Patient Decision ◽  
Development Processes ◽  
Systematic Development

Background 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. [Box: see text]

scholarly journals Basing Information on Comprehensive, Critically Appraised, and Up-to-Date Syntheses of the Scientific Evidence: An Update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards

2021 ◽  
pp. 0272989X2199662
Author(s):  
Tammy C. Hoffmann ◽  
Mina Bakhit ◽  
Marie-Anne Durand ◽  
Lilisbeth Perestelo-Pérez ◽  
Catherine Saunders ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Aid ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Patient Decision Aid ◽  
Patient Decision Aids ◽  
Research Areas ◽  
Patient Decision ◽  
Evidence Quality ◽  
Emerging Issues

Background Patients and clinicians expect the information in patient decision aids to be based on the best available research evidence. The objectives of this International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) review were to 1) check the currency of, and where needed, update evidence for the domain of “basing the information in decision aids on comprehensive, critically appraised, and up-to-date syntheses of the evidence”; 2) analyze the evidence characteristics of decision aids; and 3) propose updates to relevant IPDAS criteria. Methods We searched MEDLINE and PubMed to inform updates of this domain’s definitions, justifications, and components. We also searched 5 sources to identify all publicly available decision aids ( N = 471). Two assessors independently extracted each aid’s evidence characteristics. Results Minor updates to the definitions and theoretical justifications of this IPDAS domain are provided and changes to relevant IPDAS criteria proposed. Nearly all aids (97%) provided a year of creation/update, but most (81%) did not report an explicit update or expiration policy. No scientific references were cited in 33% of aids. Of the 314 that cited at least 1 reference, 39% cited at least 1 guideline, 44% cited at least 1 systematic review, and 23% cited at least 1 randomized trial. In 35%, it was unclear what statement in the aid the citations referred to. Only 14% reported any of the processes used to find and decide on evidence inclusion. Only 14% reported the evidence quality. Many emerging issues and future research areas were identified. Conclusions Although many emerging issues need to be addressed, this IPDAS domain is validated and criteria refined. High-quality patient decision aids should be based on comprehensive and up-to-date syntheses of critically appraised evidence.

scholarly journals Addressing Conflicts of Interest in Health and Medicine: Current Evidence and Implications for Patient Decision Aid Development

2021 ◽  
pp. 0272989X2110088
Author(s):  
Rachel Thompson ◽  
Zoe Paskins ◽  
Barry G. Main ◽  
Thaddeus Mason Pope ◽  
Evelyn C. Y. Chan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Conflict Of Interest ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Guideline Development ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Quality Standards ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Unintended Effects ◽  
Patient Decision Aid ◽  
Patient Decision

Background More stringent policies for addressing conflicts of interest have been implemented around the world in recent years. Considering the value of revisiting conflict of interest quality standards set by the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration, we sought to review evidence relevant to 2 questions: 1) What are the effects of different strategies for managing conflicts of interest? and 2) What are patients’ perspectives on conflicts of interest? Methods We conducted a narrative review of English-language articles and abstracts from 2010 to 2019 that reported relevant quantitative or qualitative research. Results Of 1743 articles and 118 abstracts identified, 41 articles and 2 abstracts were included. Most evidence on the effects of conflict of interest management strategies pertained only to subsequent compliance with the management strategy. This evidence highlighted substantial noncompliance with prevailing requirements. Evidence on patient perspectives on conflicts of interest offered several insights, including the existence of diverse views on the acceptability of conflicts of interest, the salience of conflict of interest type and monetary value to patients, and the possibility that conflict of interest disclosure could have unintended effects. We identified no published research on the effects of IPDAS Collaboration conflict of interest quality standards on patient decision making or outcomes. Limitations Because we did not conduct a systematic review, we may have missed some evidence relevant to our review questions. In addition, our team did not include patient partners. Conclusions The findings of this review have implications for the management of conflicts of interest not only in patient decision aid development but also in clinical practice guideline development, health and medical research reporting, and health care delivery.

scholarly journals Patient decision aid based on multi-criteria decision analysis for disease-modifying drugs for multiple sclerosis: prototype development

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
I. E. H. Kremer ◽  
P. J. Jongen ◽  
S. M. A. A. Evers ◽  
E. L. J. Hoogervorst ◽  
W. I. M. Verhagen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Decision Aid ◽  
Disease Modifying Drugs ◽  
Patient Decision ◽  
Further Development

Abstract Background Since decision making about treatment with disease-modifying drugs (DMDs) for multiple sclerosis (MS) is preference sensitive, shared decision making between patient and healthcare professional should take place. Patient decision aids could support this shared decision making process by providing information about the disease and the treatment options, to elicit the patient’s preference and to support patients and healthcare professionals in discussing these preferences and matching them with a treatment. Therefore, a prototype of a patient decision aid for MS patients in the Netherlands—based on the principles of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) —was developed, following the recommendations of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards. MCDA was chosen as it might reduce cognitive burden of considering treatment options and matching patient preferences with the treatment options. Results After determining the scope to include DMDs labelled for relapsing-remitting MS and clinically isolated syndrome, users’ informational needs were assessed using focus groups (N = 19 patients) and best-worst scaling surveys with patients (N = 185), neurologists and nurses (N = 60) to determine which information about DMDs should be included in the patient decision aid. Next, an online format and computer-based delivery of the patient decision aid was chosen to enable embedding of MCDA. A literature review was conducting to collect evidence on the effectiveness and burden of use of the DMDs. A prototype was developed next, and alpha testing to evaluate its comprehensibility and usability with in total thirteen patients and four healthcare professionals identified several issues regarding content and framing, methods for weighting importance of criteria in the MCDA structure, and the presentation of the conclusions of the patient decision aid ranking the treatment options according to the patient’s preferences. Adaptations were made accordingly, but verification of the rankings provided, validation of the patient decision aid, evaluation of the feasibility of implementation and assessing its value for supporting shared decision making should be addressed in further development of the patient decision aid. Conclusion This paper aimed to provide more transparency regarding the developmental process of an MCDA-based patient decision aid for treatment decisions for MS and the challenges faced during this process. Issues identified in the prototype were resolved as much as possible, though some issues remain. Further development is needed to overcome these issues before beta pilot testing with patients and healthcare professionals at the point of clinical decision-making can take place to ultimately enable making conclusions about the value of the MCDA-based patient decision aid for MS patients, healthcare professionals and the quality of care.

Acceptability of a patient decision aid for women aged 70 and older with stage I, estrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina A. Minami ◽  
Rachel A. Freedman ◽  
Maria Karamourtopoulos ◽  
Adlin Pinheiro ◽  
Elizabeth Gilliam ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Estrogen Receptor ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Stage I ◽  
Patient Decision Aid ◽  
Patient Decision ◽  
Estrogen Receptor Positive

A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial of a Patient Decision Aid for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder

2015 ◽  
Vol 66 (2) ◽  
pp. 149-154 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bradley V. Watts ◽  
Paula P. Schnurr ◽  
Maha Zayed ◽  
Yinong Young-Xu ◽  
Patricia Stender ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ◽  
Posttraumatic Stress ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Stress Disorder ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trial ◽  
Patient Decision Aid ◽  
Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Patient Decision
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document