E Netherlands. The number of available decision aids, their format and mode of access varied across organisations. As of June 2015, the 3 biggest developers have been Healthwise, the Agency for Healthcare Study and Excellent, and Wellness Dialog, with 180, 51 and 38 available patient decision aids, respectively. Other developers had smaller numbers of out there tools. The majority of organisations had been not-for-profit organisations (n=9). Most selection aids had been web-based,Elwyn G, et al. BMJ Open 2016;6:e012562. doi:ten.1136bmjopen-2016-Open AccessFigure 1 Flowchart of organisations from identification to inclusion in analysis.usually with print versions out there. Eight out of 12 organisations allowed totally free access to the tools. 4 organisations required payment or licences, despite the fact that two of those organisations allowed limited cost-free access to some tools. Summary of competing interest approaches Organisations producing patient choice aids do not possess a constant method when coping with competing interests. Some have written policies, others use an informal approach, and some collect details about competing interests with out getting a clear policy on the best way to manage identified conflicts (table two). Six of your 12 participating organisations (Agency for Healthcare Study and Top quality, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Healthcare Center (CCHMC), Wellness Dialog, Healthwise, Option Grid Collaborative, and Sydney College of Public Wellness) sent us their written competing interests policy. Two on the other six organisations reported following undocumented competing interest principles (Mayo Clinic and University Medical 
Center Hamburg), and an additional applied criteria specified by the International Patient Selection Aids Requirements Collaboration (Ottawa HospitalElwyn G, et al. BMJ Open 2016;6:e012562. doi:10.1136bmjopen-2016-Research Institute). Two from the three for-profit organisations (Emmi Solutions and WiserCare) didn’t have a documented competing interest policy. Five on the 12 decision aid organisations had a get Sodium stibogluconate rigorous method to disclosing competing interests, defined as having a written policy, a disclosure of competing interests form, and a method of deciding whether or to not exclude contributors with competing interest. Six organisations barred contributors who had competing interests from contributing to improvement processes (Agency for Healthcare Study and Quality, CCHMC, Healthwise, Alternative Grid Collaborative, Sydney School of Public Health, and Mayo Clinic), all with exemptions achievable, six didn’t. Eight from the 12 organisations utilized types to gather details about competing interests. On the other 4 organisations, two reported asking for informal disclosures. Four organisations didn’t have a formal process of identifying competing interest and did not have a documented policy. Five organisations disclosed competing interests on their patient decision aids, directly (Emmi Solutions, Ottawa Hospital Study Institute, and PATIENT+) or by usingOpen AccessTable 1 Patient selection aid organisations (as of June 2015) Organisation Agency for Healthcare Analysis and Excellent PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21330032 Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Health-related Center Emmi Options Well being Dialog Healthwise Mayo Clinic Ottawa Hospital Study Institute Selection Grid Collaborative PATIENT+ University Health-related Center Hamburg Sydney College of Public Well being WiserCare Country USA USA USA USA USA USA Canada USA The Netherlands Germany Australia USA Choice aids 51 five 15+ 38 180 five 16 37 ten 9 6 10 Fo.