|Appears in Collections:||Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport Journal Articles|
|Peer Review Status:||Refereed|
|Title:||Standards for UNiversal reporting of patient Decision Aid Evaluation studies: the development of SUNDAE Checklist (Forthcoming)|
|Author(s):||Sepucha, Karen R|
Hoffman, Aubri S
Bekker, Hilary L
Levin, Carrie A
Shaffer, Victoria A
Sheridan, Stacey L
Thomson, Richard G
|Keywords:||shared decision making|
|Citation:||Sepucha KR, Abhyankar P, Hoffman AS, Bekker HL, LeBlanc A, Levin CA, Ropka M, Shaffer VA, Sheridan SL, Stacey D, Stalmeier P, Vo H, Wills C & Thomson RG (2017) Standards for UNiversal reporting of patient Decision Aid Evaluation studies: the development of SUNDAE Checklist (Forthcoming), BMJ Quality and Safety.|
|Abstract:||Background: Patient decision aids (PDAs) are evidence-based tools designed to help patients make specific and deliberated choices among healthcare options. The International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration review papers and Cochrane systematic review of PDAs have found significant gaps in the reporting of evaluations of PDAs, including poor or limited reporting of PDA content, development methods, and delivery. This study sought to develop and reach consensus on reporting guidelines to improve the quality of publications evaluating PDAs. Methods: An international workgroup, consisting of members from IPDAS Collaboration, followed established methods to develop reporting guidelines for PDA evaluation studies. This paper describes the results from three completed phases (1) Planning, (2) Drafting, and (3) Consensus, which included a modified, two stage, online international Delphi process. The work was conducted over two years with bi-monthly conference calls and three in-person meetings. The workgroup used input from these phases to produce a final set of recommended items in the form of a checklist. Results: The SUNDAE Checklist (Standards for UNiversal reporting of patient Decision Aid Evaluations) includes 26 items recommended for studies reporting evaluations of PDAs. In the two-stage Delphi process, 117/143 (82%) experts from 14 countries completed round 1 and 96/117 (82%) completed round 2. Respondents reached a high level of consensus on the importance of the items and indicated strong willingness to use the items when reporting PDA studies. Conclusion: The SUNDAE Checklist will help ensure that reports of PDA evaluation studies are understandable, transparent, and of high quality. A separate Explanation and Elaboration publication provides additional details to support use of the Checklist.|
|Rights:||This item has been embargoed for a period. During the embargo please use the Request a Copy feature at the foot of the Repository record to request a copy directly from the author. You can only request a copy if you wish to use this work for your own research or private study.|
|Accepted_SUNDAE Reporting Guideline Manuscript_CleanCopy_FINAL.pdf||553.6 kB||Adobe PDF||Under Embargo until 2019-09-28 Request a copy|
Note: If any of the files in this item are currently embargoed, you can request a copy directly from the author by clicking the padlock icon above. However, this facility is dependent on the depositor still being contactable at their original email address.
This item is protected by original copyright
Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact email@example.com providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.