Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2009;4(3):e4705.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0004705. Epub 2009 Mar 4.

Assessing the Quality of Decision Support Technologies Using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Instrument (IPDASi)

Affiliations
Free PMC article

Assessing the Quality of Decision Support Technologies Using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Instrument (IPDASi)

Glyn Elwyn et al. PLoS One. .
Free PMC article

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.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 138 articles

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. O'Connor AM, Wennberg J, Legare F, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Moulton B, et al. Towards the ‘tipping point’: decision aids and informed patient choice. Health Affairs. 2007;26:716–725. - PubMed
    1. O'Connor AM, Stacey D, Entwistle V, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Rovner D, et al. The Cochrane Library., Chichester, UK: John Wiley&Sons, Ltd; 2004. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions (Cochrane Review) Issue 1.
    1. O'Connor AM, Stacey D, Légaré F. Coaching to support patients in making decisions. BMJ. 2008;336:228–9. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Banta D. The development of health technology assessment. Health Policy. 2003;63:121–32. - PubMed
    1. Cluzeau FA, Burgers JS, Brouwers M, Grol R, Mäkelä M, et al. Development and validation of an international appraisal instrument for assessing the quality of clinical practice guidelines: the AGREE project. Quality and Safety in Health Care. 2003;12:18–23. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources

Feedback