The study objective was to evaluate the psychometric properties of a decisional conflict scale (DCS) that elicits: 1) health-care consumers' uncertainty in making a health-related decision; 2) the factors contributing to the uncertainty; and 3) health-care consumers' perceived effective decision making. The DCS was developed in response to the lack of instruments available to evaluate health-care-consumer decision aids and to tailor decision-supporting interventions to particular consumer needs. The scale was evaluated with 909 individuals deciding about influenza immunization or breast cancer screening. A subsample of respondents was retested two weeks later. The test-retest reliability coefficient was 0.81. Internal consistency coefficients ranged from 0.78 to 0.92. The DCS discriminated significantly (p < 0.0002) between those who had strong intentions either to accept or to decline invitations to receive influenza vaccine or breast cancer screening and those whose intentions were uncertain. The scale also discriminated significantly (p < 0.0002) between those who accepted or rejected immunization and those who delayed their decisions to be immunized. There was a weak inverse correlation (r = -0.16, p < 0.05) between the DCS and knowledge test scores. The psychometric properties of the scale are acceptable. It is feasible and easy to administer. Evaluations of responsiveness to change and validation with more difficult decisions are warranted.

Objective To develop a set of quality criteria for patient decision support technologies (decision aids). Design and setting Two stage web based Delphi process using online rating process to enable international collaboration. Participants Individuals from four stakeholder groups (researchers, practitioners, patients, policy makers) representing 14 countries reviewed evidence summaries and rated the importance of 80 criteria in 12 quality domains on a 1 to 9 scale. Second round participants received feedback from the first round and repeated their assessment of the 80 criteria plus three new ones. Main outcome measure Aggregate ratings for each criterion calculated using medians weighted to compensate for different numbers in stakeholder groups; criteria rated between 7 and 9 were retained. Results 212 nominated people were invited to participate. Of those invited, 122 participated in the first round (77 researchers, 21 patients, 10 practitioners, 14 policy makers); 104/122 (85%) participated in the second round. 74 of 83 criteria were retained in the following domains: systematic development process (9/9 criteria); providing information about options (13/13); presenting probabilities (11/13); clarifying and expressing values (3/3); using patient stories (2/5); guiding/coaching (3/5); disclosing conflicts of interest (5/5); providing internet access (6/6); balanced presentation of options (3/3); using plain language (4/6); basing information on up to date evidence (7/7); and establishing effectiveness (8/8). Conclusions Criteria were given the highest ratings where evidence existed, and these were retained. Gaps in research were highlighted. Developers, users, and purchasers of patient decision aids now have a checklist for appraising quality. An instrument for measuring quality of decision aids is being developed.

The scale is a useful indicator of health care decision regret at a given point in time.

This review is published as a Cochrane Review in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2017, Issue 4. Cochrane Reviews are regularly updated as new evidence emerges and in response to comments and criticisms, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews should be consulted for the most recent version of the Review.