International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS)

Before submitting your information sheet to the Information Team for approval you may wish to assess the quality of the information you are providing. Clearly, the higher the score you achieve, the better quality the information.

Scoring the checklist

Each question is rated on a 5-point scale ranging from No to Yes. Although the marks for individual sub-criteria should be considered, you can give an impressionistic rating for each section. The rating scale has been designed to help you decide whether the quality criterion in question is present or has been 'fulfilled' by the publication. General guidelines are as follows:

  • 5 should be given if your answer to the question is a definite 'yes' - the quality criterion has been completely fulfilled
  • Partially (score of 2 – 4) should be given if you feel the publication being considered meets the criterion in question to some extent. How high or low you rate ‘partially’ will depend on your judgement of the extent of these shortcomings
  • 1 should be given if the answer to the question is a definite ‘no’– the quality criterion has not been fulfilled at all.

Does the information leaflet
Start with a clear statement of aims? (5 points)
Overall score 1  2  3  4  5 
Describes its purpose (e.g. to aid decision-making)
Describes what it covers (to help the reader judge whether it’s worth carrying on)
Describes who it is for (e.g. patient/carer/professional, which condition, which stage of the condition)
Provide unbiased and detailed information about options to support decision making?
(5 points) Overall score 1  2  3  4  5 
Describes the health condition
Describes the natural course without treatment
Lists the treatment/management/lifestyle options
Describes benefits of options
Describes risks of options (harms/side-effects/disadvantages)
Describes uncertainty around the current evidence
Describes procedures (i.e. treatments, targets, monitoring, behaviour change, etc.)
Present probabilities of treatment outcomes in an understandable way?
(5 points) Overall score 1  2  3  4  5 
Uses event rates specifying the population and, if appropriate, time period
Compares outcome probabilities using the same numerator/denominator, time period, scale (i.e. if numerators/denominators, time periods or scales are used, they need to be consistent)
Uses visual diagrams and/or places probabilities in context of other familiar events (e.g. fatal road accidents)
Help patients to make appropriate decisions
(5 points) Overall score 1  2  3  4  5 
Acknowledges (explicitly or implicitly) that the patient has decisions to make
Helps patients to imagine what it is like to live with the condition and/or treatment effects
Asks patients to consider factors (e.g. priorities, motivations, treatment outcomes) affecting possible courses of action
Suggests ways and/or provides tools to help patients make decisions
Does the information leaflet
Disclose conflicts of interest?
(5 points) Overall score 1  2  3  4  5 
Includes authors’ credentials or qualifications or job role(s)
Reports source of funding to develop and distribute the information resource
Personal opinion and/or advertising are clearly distinguished from evidence-based information
Have a clear structure and layout?
(5 points) Overall score 1  2  3  4  5 
Is consistent in design and layout throughout
Includes aids to finding information (e.g. contents, index, site map or search facility)
Important points are emphasised through the use of summaries and/or bullet-points
Illustrates information with diagrams and/or pictures
Where diagrams appear, they are labelled and relate to the subject matter
Sections are clearly separated
Total score forcontent
Out of 40