A

Scoping review indicates heterogeneous methods for developing and integrating patient decision aids in the context of clinical practice guidelines

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol. 181, pp. 111708

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To review the methods used to develop and integrate patient decision aids (PDAs) based on the recommendations of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a scoping review covering bibliographic databases (PubMed, Embase; searched until December 2023), gray literature, references, and expert consultations to identify eligible documents. Documents published from 2000 onwards and describing methods related to guideline-based PDA development or linking CPGs and PDAs were included. Two reviewers independently selected and analyzed the documents. Results were synthesized and presented narratively. RESULTS: Based on 24 included documents, we categorized their methods into 4 topics. For topic (1), the selection of CPG recommendations for which PDAs are (most) needed, we found a total of 14 selection factors across n = 11 documents, with uncertainty/variability in patient preferences and trade-offs between options being the most frequently mentioned. Topic (2) (n = 24) covers methods for developing and/or updating guideline-based PDAs, such as forming a multidisciplinary development group, using CPGs and their evidence summaries along with other sources as the evidence base, and using digital solutions for semi-automated development and updating. Topic (3) (n = 12) covers methods for PDA quality assessment and/or user testing, such as finalizing and approving the PDAs after a review and feedback process from the CPG group and an iterative user testing process. Topic (4) (n = 20) covers methods for linking CPGs and PDAs, often through digital strategies. CONCLUSION: We identified heterogeneous methods for developing and integrating PDAs based on CPG recommendations. Empirical testing is required to determine the most useful and practically feasible (combination of) methods. CPG organizations should focus on establishing adequate methods for linking CPG and PDA development to foster shared decision-making.

Authors 17

  1. Lena Fischer corresponding

    Medizinische Hochschule Brandenburg Theodor Fontane

    Affiliation as printed

    Faculty of Health Sciences Brandenburg, Institute for Health Services and Health System Research, Brandenburg Medical School (Theodor Fontane), Rüdersdorf, Germany; Center for Health Services Research, Brandenburg Medical School (Theodor Fontane), Rüdersdorf, Germany. Electronic address: Lena.Fischer@mhb-fontane.de

    Institute for Health Services and Health System Research, Faculty of Health Sciences Brandenburg, Brandenburg Medical School (Theodor Fontane), Rüdersdorf, Germany; Center for Health Services Research, Brandenburg Medical School (Theodor Fontane), Rüdersdorf, Germany. Electronic address: Lena.Fischer@mhb-fontane.de

  2. Affiliation as printed

    Share to Care, Patient-Centered Care GmbH, Cologne, Germany

    SHARE TO CARE. Patient-centered care GmbH, Cologne, Germany

  3. University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein

    Affiliation as printed

    Share to Care, Patient-Centered Care GmbH, Cologne, Germany; National Competency Center for Shared Decision Making, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany

    SHARE TO CARE. Patient-centered care GmbH, Cologne, Germany; National Competency Center for Shared Decision Making, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany

  4. Medizinische Hochschule Brandenburg Theodor Fontane

    Affiliation as printed

    Faculty of Health Sciences Brandenburg, Institute for Health Services and Health System Research, Brandenburg Medical School (Theodor Fontane), Rüdersdorf, Germany

    Institute for Health Services and Health System Research, Faculty of Health Sciences Brandenburg, Brandenburg Medical School (Theodor Fontane), Rüdersdorf, Germany

  5. German Agency for Quality in Medicine

    Affiliation as printed

    German Agency for Quality in Medicine (ÄZQ), Berlin, Germany

  6. Affiliation as printed

    CGS Clinical Guideline Services GmbH, Berlin, Germany

  7. Affiliation as printed

    German Network for Evidence-based Medicine (EbM-Network), Berlin, Germany

  8. Medizinische Hochschule Brandenburg Theodor Fontane

    Affiliation as printed

    Faculty of Health Sciences Brandenburg, Institute for Health Services and Health System Research, Brandenburg Medical School (Theodor Fontane), Rüdersdorf, Germany

    Institute for Health Services and Health System Research, Faculty of Health Sciences Brandenburg, Brandenburg Medical School (Theodor Fontane), Rüdersdorf, Germany

  9. Universidad de Antioquia · McMaster University

    Affiliation as printed

    Department of Pediatrics, University of Antioquia, Medellin, Colombia; Pediatric Intensive Care Unit, Clínica Las Américas-AUNA, Medellin, Colombia; School of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada

  10. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence

    Affiliation as printed

    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), Manchester, United Kingdom

  11. Sichuan University · West China Hospital of Sichuan University

    Affiliation as printed

    Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Cochrane China Centre, MAGIC China Centre, Chinese Evidence-Based Medicine Centre, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China

  12. Universidade de Santiago de Compostela

    Affiliation as printed

    General Surgery Department, Hospital Público Verín, Ourense, Spain; Department of General Surgery, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain; Deontological Committee of the College of Physicians of Ourense, Ourense, Spain; Healthcare Ethics Committee of Ourense, Ourense, Spain

    General Surgery Department. Hospital Público Verín, Ourense, Spain; Department of General Surgery. University of Santiago de Compostela, Spain; Deontological Committee of the College of Physicians of Ourense, Spain; Healthcare Ethics Committee of Ourense, Spain

  13. The University of Adelaide

    Affiliation as printed

    Health Evidence Synthesis, Recommendations and Impact (HESRI), School of Public Health, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia

  14. Servicio Canario de la Salud

    Affiliation as printed

    Evaluation Unit (SESCS), Canary Islands Health Service (SCS), Tenerife, Spain; Network for Research on Chronicity, Primary Care, and Health Promotion (RICAPPS), Tenerife, Spain; Spanish Network of Agencies for Assessing National Health System Technologies and Performance (RedETS), Tenerife, Spain

  15. Catholic University of Croatia

    Affiliation as printed

    Center for Evidence-Based Medicine and Healthcare, Catholic University of Croatia, Zagreb, Croatia

  16. Leiden University Medical Center · Erasmus University Rotterdam

    Affiliation as printed

    Medical Decision Making, Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands; Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Medical Decision Making, Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands; Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands

  17. Medizinische Hochschule Brandenburg Theodor Fontane

    Affiliation as printed

    Faculty of Health Sciences Brandenburg, Institute for Health Services and Health System Research, Brandenburg Medical School (Theodor Fontane), Rüdersdorf, Germany; Center for Health Services Research, Brandenburg Medical School (Theodor Fontane), Rüdersdorf, Germany

    Institute for Health Services and Health System Research, Faculty of Health Sciences Brandenburg, Brandenburg Medical School (Theodor Fontane), Rüdersdorf, Germany; Center for Health Services Research, Brandenburg Medical School (Theodor Fontane), Rüdersdorf, Germany

Cited by 2 stored of 2

2 results

No patents citing this paper on Lens.org (checked 2026-10-11).

References 53