Able as of June 2015, and (two) had actively maintained and updated these tools. For the goal of this study, we adapted the definition of patient selection aids made use of within 
the Cochrane systematic assessment of patient choice aids.7 Eligible organisations were those that created interventions that: (1) enable sufferers make deliberate informed healthcare choices; (two) explicitly state the DPH-153893 supplier decision to be deemed; (3) present balanced evidence-based facts about available selections, describing their linked benefits, harms and probabilities; and (4) assistance sufferers to recognise and clarify preferences. Information collection A regular e mail was sent to organisations identified as possibly eligible requesting a copy of their competing interest policy and declaration of interest type(s), also as any other documents made use of to manage the relevant competing interests of their contributors, writers or authorities, and these involved within the evidence synthesis approach (see on line supplementary material). We also requested information about the number and format in the organisation’s patient selection aids. If we received incomplete or unclear details, extra inquiries 2 had been created. Reminders have been sent at 1 and 2 weeks, and non-responses were documented. Right after piloting a information extraction kind, two researchers (M-AD and MD) independently tabulated data concerning the organisation’s name, place, number of active patient choice aids offered, patient choice help access (free or commercial), and patient decision aid variety (eg, paper, net or video-based, or other). Information had been summarised with regards to every single organisation’s competing interest approach: scope, principles, applicability, coverage and date of implementation. Data analysis To identify themes within the information, all documented competing interest policies received had been examined making use of qualitative methods, specifically thematic analysis. Undocumented approaches to managing competing interests described in verbal or email communications were not included inside the thematic analysis. MD and AB independently reviewed the extracted information and created a preliminary codebook, utilizing three on the documents received. Discrepancies in coding were discussed with M-AD till a definitive codebook was agreed, and applied by MD and AB to all policy documents using ATLAS.ti V.1.0.34. Inconsistent coding was resolved by consultation with M-AD. Codes PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21329865 across organisations had been compared. Every single organisation was asked to verify our interpretation of information in relation to existence of a documented policy, disclosure form, their approach to exclusion where competing interests were identified, their active quantity of patient decision aids and regardless of whether the tools had been obtainable publically or commercially; factual errors have been addressed. Authors who were also members from the Alternative Grid Collaborative did not extract, code or analyse information from that organisation. Option Grid Collaborative data had been handled by UP and MD. Final results Patient decision aid organisations We contacted 25 organisations which we viewed as probably to meet the preset inclusion criteria (see figure 1). Twelve eligible organisations offered data (table 1). Eleven organisations did not reply and two declined to participate (see table 1 footnote). We do not know whether or not the non-responders were eligible, and we’re unable to report data from those that declined participation. Eight on the 12 participating organisations were based within the USA, and one each in Australia, Canada, Germany and th.