From: A `combined framework’ approach to developing a patient decision aid: the PANDAs model
IPDAS criteria | Domains | PANDAs insulin PDA |
---|---|---|
1. Providing information about options | Development (content) | • The information included in the PDA was based on two criteria: |
○ What do patients want to know before making a decision | ||
○ What do patients need to know before making a decision? | ||
• The findings from the needs assessment of the patients informed what and how much they wanted to know before making a decision | ||
2. Presenting probabilities | Development (content) | • The "risk communication" section of the PDA was based on the decision making theories |
○ Use of event rates specified by the population in period (e.g. number of people affected out of 100 people over 5 years) | ||
○ Comparison of outcomes probabilities using the same denominator, period, scale (e.g. out of 100 people over 5 years) | ||
○ Description of the uncertainty around probabilities (`platinum’, `gold’, `silver’ and `bronze’) | ||
• Visual diagrams ("smiley" faces) were used in conjunction with other methods to illustrate the probabilities (words, numbers, diagram) | ||
• `Smiley’ sticker was used to present individualised risk to patients based on their HbA1c | ||
3. Clarifying and expressing values | Development (content) | • Values may be attributed to |
○ Each treatment option (e.g. values attributed to "make no change", "more adherent to existing treatment" and " starting insulin") | ||
○ Specific features of the treatment option i.e. the value of the procedure/process (e.g. the values associated with insulin injection) | ||
○ Value of outcomes (e.g. the values associated with weight gain due to insulin treatment) | ||
○ Value of probabilities (e.g. the values associated with the probabilities of gaining 6-8 lbs in weight over a year with insulin treatment). | ||
• The PANDAs insulin PDA helped patients to clarify their own values using an explicit approach | ||
• Patients worked through a personal worksheet in the PDA to determine how important each feature and outcome of the treatment options were to them | ||
4. Guiding/coaching in deliberation and communication | Development (content/format) | • IPDAS quality criteria recommend that PDAs should: |
○ Provide steps to make a decision | ||
○ Suggest ways to talk about the decision with a health professional | ||
○ Include tools (e.g. workshop question list) to discuss options with others. | ||
• The PANDAs PDA | ||
○ Provides a five-step systematic approach to decision making (Table 3) | ||
○ Encourages the patient to discuss uncertainties or queries with the healthcare professionals (prompts) | ||
○ Encourages the patient to write down their questions for the healthcare professionals | ||
5. Disclosing conflicts of interest | Development (process) | |
6. Balancing the presentation of options | Development (content/format) | • PANDAs insulin PDA provided balanced information by |
○ Making comparison of the positive and negative features of each option | ||
○ Both features were presented with equal detail and in the same format (font, order, display of statistic) | ||
• The balance of the PDA was assessed during the acceptability study by asking the patients and the healthcare professionals how balanced and fair they found the information presented | ||
7. Using plain language (readability) | Development (format) | • The PANDAs insulin PDA used "Simply Put" plain language guideline produced by the Centre for Communicable Disease and Prevention (1999). |
• The "readability" was assessed using the Readability Calculations, version 7.0 software (which includes the SMOG and FRY readability tests) | ||
• Patients and patient education experts also reviewed the PDA | ||
8. Basing information on up to date scientific evidence | Development (content/process) | • Where possible, clinical evidence based on systematic reviews and national or local clinical practice guidelines were used. |
9. Establishing effectiveness | Evaluation |