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 AUDIT-C was an effective screening test for alcohol misuse in this primary care sample. Optimal screening thresholds for alcohol misuse among men (> or =4) and women (> or =3) were the same as in previously published VA studies.

In 2009, the American Cancer Society (ACS) Prostate Cancer Advisory Committee began the process of a complete update of recommendations for early prostate cancer detection. A series of systematic evidence reviews was conducted focusing on evidence related to the early detection of prostate cancer, test performance, harms of therapy for localized prostate cancer, and shared and informed decision making in prostate cancer screening. The results of the systematic reviews were evaluated by the ACS Prostate Cancer Advisory Committee, and deliberations about the evidence occurred at committee meetings and during conference calls. On the basis of the evidence and a consensus process, the Prostate Cancer Advisory Committee developed the guideline, and a writing committee drafted a guideline document that was circulated to the entire committee for review and revision. The document was then circulated to peer reviewers for feedback, and finally to the ACS Mission Outcomes Committee and the ACS Board of Directors for approval. The ACS recommends that asymptomatic men who have at least a 10-year life expectancy have an opportunity to make an informed decision with their health care provider about screening for prostate cancer after they receive information about the uncertainties, risks, and potential benefits associated with prostate cancer screening. Prostate cancer screening should not occur without an informed decision-making process. Men at average risk should receive this information beginning at age 50 years. Men in higher risk groups should receive this information before age 50 years. Men should either receive this information directly from their health care providers or be referred to reliable and culturally appropriate sources. Patient decision aids are helpful in preparing men to make a decision whether to be tested.

This study provides preliminary certification criteria for PDAs. Scoring and rating processes need to be tested and finalized. However, the process of appraising the quality of the clinical evidence reported by the PDA should be used to complement these criteria; the proposed standards are designed to rate the quality of the development process and shared decision-making design elements, not the quality of the PDA's clinical content.