Existing evidence summarization methods cannot guarantee trustworthy patient decision aids

Michelle D. Dannenberg, Marie Anne Durand, Victor Manuel Montori, Clifford Reilly, Glyn Elwyn

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: Our aim was to evaluate how organizations that develop patient decision aids conduct their evidence summarization process and assess whether their current processes provide sufficient information to instill confidence that patient decision aids are trustworthy and up to date. Study Design and Setting: We identified 23 organizations from a public inventory of patient decision aid developers and included only organizations that have produced five or more tools. These organizations were asked to complete a 17-item survey and to share relevant documents. Results: Of the 23 organizations, 18 completed the survey, and 15 were eligible for analysis. Most organizations reported using existing systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines. Seven of 15 had a documented approach for summarizing evidence, but the documents offered varying levels of detail. Common steps identified are tool-relevant question formation, search strategies, evidence appraisals, and updating policies. Conclusions: Organizations do not use a standardized process to summarize evidence for the patient decision aids that they develop. This is problematic, given that the information they contain is known to influence patients’ decisions. Further attention to how organizations summarize evidence for these tools is required.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)69-77
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume102
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2018

Fingerprint

Decision Support Techniques
Organizations
Practice Guidelines
Equipment and Supplies

Keywords

  • Decision aid
  • Evidence
  • Guidelines
  • Process
  • Reporting

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Epidemiology

Cite this

Existing evidence summarization methods cannot guarantee trustworthy patient decision aids. / Dannenberg, Michelle D.; Durand, Marie Anne; Montori, Victor Manuel; Reilly, Clifford; Elwyn, Glyn.

In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 102, 01.10.2018, p. 69-77.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Dannenberg, Michelle D. ; Durand, Marie Anne ; Montori, Victor Manuel ; Reilly, Clifford ; Elwyn, Glyn. / Existing evidence summarization methods cannot guarantee trustworthy patient decision aids. In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2018 ; Vol. 102. pp. 69-77.
@article{bfabe9558fff441eb0b866f26df04ecb,
title = "Existing evidence summarization methods cannot guarantee trustworthy patient decision aids",
abstract = "Objectives: Our aim was to evaluate how organizations that develop patient decision aids conduct their evidence summarization process and assess whether their current processes provide sufficient information to instill confidence that patient decision aids are trustworthy and up to date. Study Design and Setting: We identified 23 organizations from a public inventory of patient decision aid developers and included only organizations that have produced five or more tools. These organizations were asked to complete a 17-item survey and to share relevant documents. Results: Of the 23 organizations, 18 completed the survey, and 15 were eligible for analysis. Most organizations reported using existing systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines. Seven of 15 had a documented approach for summarizing evidence, but the documents offered varying levels of detail. Common steps identified are tool-relevant question formation, search strategies, evidence appraisals, and updating policies. Conclusions: Organizations do not use a standardized process to summarize evidence for the patient decision aids that they develop. This is problematic, given that the information they contain is known to influence patients’ decisions. Further attention to how organizations summarize evidence for these tools is required.",
keywords = "Decision aid, Evidence, Guidelines, Process, Reporting",
author = "Dannenberg, {Michelle D.} and Durand, {Marie Anne} and Montori, {Victor Manuel} and Clifford Reilly and Glyn Elwyn",
year = "2018",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.06.003",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "102",
pages = "69--77",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",
issn = "0895-4356",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Existing evidence summarization methods cannot guarantee trustworthy patient decision aids

AU - Dannenberg, Michelle D.

AU - Durand, Marie Anne

AU - Montori, Victor Manuel

AU - Reilly, Clifford

AU - Elwyn, Glyn

PY - 2018/10/1

Y1 - 2018/10/1

N2 - Objectives: Our aim was to evaluate how organizations that develop patient decision aids conduct their evidence summarization process and assess whether their current processes provide sufficient information to instill confidence that patient decision aids are trustworthy and up to date. Study Design and Setting: We identified 23 organizations from a public inventory of patient decision aid developers and included only organizations that have produced five or more tools. These organizations were asked to complete a 17-item survey and to share relevant documents. Results: Of the 23 organizations, 18 completed the survey, and 15 were eligible for analysis. Most organizations reported using existing systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines. Seven of 15 had a documented approach for summarizing evidence, but the documents offered varying levels of detail. Common steps identified are tool-relevant question formation, search strategies, evidence appraisals, and updating policies. Conclusions: Organizations do not use a standardized process to summarize evidence for the patient decision aids that they develop. This is problematic, given that the information they contain is known to influence patients’ decisions. Further attention to how organizations summarize evidence for these tools is required.

AB - Objectives: Our aim was to evaluate how organizations that develop patient decision aids conduct their evidence summarization process and assess whether their current processes provide sufficient information to instill confidence that patient decision aids are trustworthy and up to date. Study Design and Setting: We identified 23 organizations from a public inventory of patient decision aid developers and included only organizations that have produced five or more tools. These organizations were asked to complete a 17-item survey and to share relevant documents. Results: Of the 23 organizations, 18 completed the survey, and 15 were eligible for analysis. Most organizations reported using existing systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines. Seven of 15 had a documented approach for summarizing evidence, but the documents offered varying levels of detail. Common steps identified are tool-relevant question formation, search strategies, evidence appraisals, and updating policies. Conclusions: Organizations do not use a standardized process to summarize evidence for the patient decision aids that they develop. This is problematic, given that the information they contain is known to influence patients’ decisions. Further attention to how organizations summarize evidence for these tools is required.

KW - Decision aid

KW - Evidence

KW - Guidelines

KW - Process

KW - Reporting

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85049853920&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85049853920&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.06.003

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.06.003

M3 - Article

C2 - 29928973

AN - SCOPUS:85049853920

VL - 102

SP - 69

EP - 77

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

SN - 0895-4356

ER -