Being a partner in my care: Realistic Medicine together
Healthcare Improvement Scotland has assessed this shared decision aid against the following quality criteria. The quality criteria are based on national and international standards for shared decision aids.
|
Criterion |
Assessment |
More information |
|
Process |
|
|
|
1.Has information available about the updating policy. |
Met |
If a major piece of research is published which should be practice changing, we may consider updating our content to include this, but generally prefer evidence to have gone through an independent, high quality systematic review process. |
|
2.Provides an indication that the shared decision aid is underpinned by evidence. |
Met |
Source and strength of evidence set out - NICE CG181 |
|
3.Provides information about the levels of uncertainty around event or outcome probabilities, e.g. by giving a range or by using phases such as ‘our best estimate is. |
Met |
eg - if or how long someone should take a “bisphosphonate holiday” have been controversial questions. Current guidance varies |
|
4.An equality impact assessment has been carried out to identify impact on inequalities groups. |
No Info |
Strongly based on NICE GLs so source info subject to EQIA (technology appraisal 160/161 - unclear if these are subject to EQIA) |
|
Content |
|
|
|
1.Provides a production or publication date. |
Met |
About' section dated Feb 2023 |
|
2. Provides information about country of publication. |
Met |
UK |
|
3. Describes the health condition or issue for which the decision is required. |
Met |
Options for primary care treatment of osteoporosis |
|
4.States the decision that needs to be considered. |
Met |
bisphosphonates vs no bisphosphonates for fracture prevention |
|
5. Provides clear information about the potential consequences, benefits and harms of each option |
Met |
Symptom benefits and range of harms - breast cancer / CVD, fracture risk |
|
6.Displays and frames options in a consistent, balanced and impartial way - for example, using the same sized font and neutral language |
Met |
benefits in vertebral fractures vs harms eg oesophageal cancer, osteonecrosis of jaw |
|
7. Uses everyday language that is widely understood, or simpler language where necessary. |
Not met (reading age over 14 for aid to be explained by HCP) |
Not tested - given the technical nature of the text (particularly for medication interventions) reading age unlikley to be under 14 |
|
8. Shows that effort has been made to present quantitative information about risks, benefits, chance and uncertainty in a way that is understandable to people with low levels of numeracy |
Met |
Yes - cates plots for benefits - table format for harms |
|
9. Is presented in a digital format that complies with accessibility standards, |
Not Met |
Accessible design principles employed. |