Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1893/26197
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorSepucha, Karen Ren_UK
dc.contributor.authorAbhyankar, Purvaen_UK
dc.contributor.authorHoffman, Aubri Sen_UK
dc.contributor.authorBekker, Hilary Len_UK
dc.contributor.authorLeBlanc, Annieen_UK
dc.contributor.authorLevin, Carrie Aen_UK
dc.contributor.authorRopka, Maryen_UK
dc.contributor.authorShaffer, Victoria Aen_UK
dc.contributor.authorSheridan, Stacey Len_UK
dc.contributor.authorStacey, Dawnen_UK
dc.contributor.authorStalmeier, Peepen_UK
dc.contributor.authorVo, Haen_UK
dc.contributor.authorWills, Celiaen_UK
dc.contributor.authorThomson, Richard Gen_UK
dc.date.accessioned2018-01-20T03:20:59Z-
dc.date.available2018-01-20T03:20:59Z-
dc.date.issued2018-05-31en_UK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1893/26197-
dc.description.abstractBackground: 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.en_UK
dc.language.isoenen_UK
dc.publisherBMJ Publishing Groupen_UK
dc.relationSepucha 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 (2018) Standards for UNiversal reporting of patient Decision Aid Evaluation studies: the development of SUNDAE Checklist. BMJ Quality and Safety, 27 (5), pp. 380-388. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2017-006986en_UK
dc.rightsThis is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/en_UK
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/en_UK
dc.subjectshared decision makingen_UK
dc.subjectpatient-centred careen_UK
dc.subjectpatient educationen_UK
dc.subjectchecklistsen_UK
dc.titleStandards for UNiversal reporting of patient Decision Aid Evaluation studies: the development of SUNDAE Checklisten_UK
dc.typeJournal Articleen_UK
dc.identifier.doi10.1136/bmjqs-2017-006986en_UK
dc.identifier.pmid29269567en_UK
dc.citation.jtitleBMJ Quality and Safetyen_UK
dc.citation.issn2044-5423en_UK
dc.citation.issn2044-5415en_UK
dc.citation.volume27en_UK
dc.citation.issue5en_UK
dc.citation.spage380en_UK
dc.citation.epage388en_UK
dc.citation.publicationstatusPublisheden_UK
dc.citation.peerreviewedRefereeden_UK
dc.type.statusVoR - Version of Recorden_UK
dc.citation.date21/12/2017en_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationHarvard Universityen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationHealth Sciences Stirlingen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Texasen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Leedsen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversite Laval, Canadaen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationHealthwiseen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Virginiaen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Missouri - Columbiaen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationThe Reaching for High Value Care Teamen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Ottawaen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationRadboud University Nijmegenen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationMassachusetts General Hospitalen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationOhio State Universityen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationNewcastle Universityen_UK
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000433230000008en_UK
dc.identifier.scopusid2-s2.0-85057738654en_UK
dc.identifier.wtid897547en_UK
dc.contributor.orcid0000-0002-0779-6588en_UK
dc.date.accepted2017-10-31en_UK
dcterms.dateAccepted2017-10-31en_UK
dc.date.filedepositdate2017-11-27en_UK
rioxxterms.apcnot requireden_UK
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_UK
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_UK
local.rioxx.authorSepucha, Karen R|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorAbhyankar, Purva|0000-0002-0779-6588en_UK
local.rioxx.authorHoffman, Aubri S|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorBekker, Hilary L|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorLeBlanc, Annie|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorLevin, Carrie A|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorRopka, Mary|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorShaffer, Victoria A|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorSheridan, Stacey L|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorStacey, Dawn|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorStalmeier, Peep|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorVo, Ha|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorWills, Celia|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorThomson, Richard G|en_UK
local.rioxx.projectInternal Project|University of Stirling|https://isni.org/isni/0000000122484331en_UK
local.rioxx.freetoreaddate2017-12-21en_UK
local.rioxx.licencehttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/under-embargo-all-rights-reserved||2017-12-21en_UK
local.rioxx.licencehttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/|2017-12-21|en_UK
local.rioxx.filename380.full.pdfen_UK
local.rioxx.filecount1en_UK
local.rioxx.source2044-5415en_UK
Appears in Collections:Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport Journal Articles

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
380.full.pdfFulltext - Published Version596.88 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


This item is protected by original copyright



A file in this item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons

Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

The metadata of the records in the Repository are available under the CC0 public domain dedication: No Rights Reserved https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact library@stir.ac.uk providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.