Delivering Patient Decision Aids on the Internet: Definitions, Theories, Current Evidence, and Emerging Research Areas

Background: In 2005, the International Patient Decision Aids Standards Collaboration identified twelve quality dimensions to guide assessment of patient decision aids. One dimension — the delivery of patient decision aids on the Internet — is relevant when the Internet is used to provide some or all components of a patient decision aid. Building on the original background chapter, this paper provides an updated definition for this dimension, outlines a theoretical rationale, describes current evidence, and discusses emerging research areas. Methods: An international, multidisciplinary panel of authors examined the relevant theoretical literature and empirical evidence through 2012. Results: The updated definition distinguishes Internet-delivery of patient decision aids from online health information and clinical practice guidelines. Theories in cognitive psychology, decision psychology, communication, and education support the value of Internet features for providing interactive information and deliberative support. Dissemination and implementation theories support Internet-delivery for providing the right information (rapidly updated), to the right person (tailored), at the right time (the appropriate point in the decision making process). Additional efforts are needed to integrate the theoretical rationale and empirical evidence from health technology perspectives, such as consumer health informatics, user experience design, and human-computer interaction. Despite Internet usage ranging from 74% to 85% in developed countries and 80% of users searching for health information, it is unknown how many individuals specifically seek patient decision aids on the Internet. Among the 86 randomized controlled trials in the 2011 Cochrane Collaboration ’ s review of patient decision aids, only four studies focused on Internet-delivery. Given the limited number of published studies, this paper particularly focused on identifying gaps in the empirical evidence base and identifying emerging areas of research. Conclusions: As of 2012, the updated theoretical rationale and emerging evidence suggest potential benefits to delivering patient decision aids on the Internet. However, additional research is needed to identify best practices and quality metrics for Internet-based development, evaluation, and dissemination, particularly in the areas of interactivity, multimedia components, socially-generated information, and implementation strategies

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

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

Parental decision making involvement and decisional conflict: a descriptive study

Background: Decisional conflict is a state of uncertainty about the best treatment option among competing alternatives and is common among adult patients who are inadequately involved in the health decision making process. In pediatrics, research shows that many parents are insufficiently involved in decisions about their child’s health. However, little is known about parents’ experience of decisional conflict. We explored parents’ perceived decision making involvement and its association with parents’ decisional conflict. Method: We conducted a descriptive survey study in a pediatric tertiary care hospital. Our survey was guided by validated decisional conflict screening items (i.e., the SURE test). We administered the survey to eligible parents after an ambulatory care or emergency department consultation for their child. Results: Four hundred twenty-nine respondents were included in the analysis. Forty-eight percent of parents reported not being offered treatment options and 23% screened positive for decisional conflict. Parents who reported being offered options experienced less decisional conflict than parents who reported not being offered options (5% vs. 42%, p < 0.001). Further, parents with options were more likely to: feel sure about the decision (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.02–1.15); understand the information (RR 1.92, 95% CI 1.63–2.28); be clear about the risks and benefits (RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.05–1.20); and, have sufficient support and advice to make a choice (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.03–1.11). Conclusion: Many parents in our sample experienced decisional conflict after their clinical consultation. Involving parents in the decision making process might reduce their risk of decisional conflict. Evidence based interventions that support parent decision making involvement, such as shared decision making, should be evaluated and implemented in pediatrics as a strategy to reduce parents’ decisional conflict.Applied Science, Faculty ofNon UBCNursing, School ofReviewedFacult

Development of IPDASi versions and IPDASi-SF: item retention and dimension merging.

*<p>IPDASi v1 is equivalent to the IPDAS Checklist.</p>¶<p>Test dimension items applicable to relevant DSTs.</p

Thirty sampled decision support technologies: sample characteristics and adjusted full IPDASi (v3) ^* and SF scores based on duplicate assessment, with 95% confidence limits.

*<p>Adjusted scores: scores from the two raters were adjusted to take account of their personal propensity to give higher or lower scores. Components of variation were modelled by Bayesian modelling (Markov chain Monte Carlo) using WinBugs software, leading to estimated confidence intervals.</p><p><b>Abbreviations</b>: (APCC: Australian Prostate Cancer Collaboration; Barratt, UoS: University of Sydney; Crouch, Baylor: Baylor College of Medicine; Col, CORE: Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation; Elwyn, CU: Cardiff University; FIMDM: Foundation for Informed Medical Decision Making; Lawrence, STVHCS: South Texas Veterans Health Care System; Leighl, UoT: University of Toronto; MCC: Michigan Cancer Consortium Prostate Cancer Action Committee; MIDIRS: Midwife Information and Resource Service; NERI: New England Research Institutes; OHDeC: Ottawa Health Decision Centre; Shorten, ACM: Australian College of Midwives; Taylor, GU: Georgetown University; US CDC: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Wakefield MU, Macquarie University).</p

IPDASi v3 Dimensions and Items.

<p>IPDASi v3 Dimensions and Items.</p

Measurement of inclusive J/ψ\psi pair production cross section in pp collisions at s=13\sqrt{s} = 13 TeV

International audienceThe production cross section of inclusive J/$\psi$ pairs in pp collisions at a centre-of-mass energy $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV is measured with ALICE. The measurement is performed for J/$\psi$ in the rapidity interval $2.5 0$. The production cross section of inclusive J/$\psi$ pairs is reported to be $10.3 \pm 2.3 {\rm (stat.)} \pm 1.3 {\rm (syst.)}$ nb in this kinematic interval. The contribution from non-prompt J/$\psi$ (i.e. originated from beauty-hadron decays) to the inclusive sample is evaluated. The results are discussed and compared with data