Translation and cultural adaptation of a prostate cancer screening decision aid: a qualitative study in Portugal

Exploring methods for creating or adapting knowledge mobilization products for culturally and linguistically diverse audiences: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Connecting end-users to research evidence has the power to improve patient knowledge and inform health decision-making. Differences in the culture and language of the end users may shape the effectiveness of knowledge mobilization (KMb). This scoping review set out to understand current approaches and methods when creating or adapting KMb products for culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) audiences.

METHODS

We searched 3 databases (Ovid Medline, CINAHL via EBSCOhost, PsychINFO) from 2011 until August 2023. We included any literature about KMb product creation or adaptation processes serving CALD communities. A primary reviewer screened all identified publications and a second reviewer screened publications excluded by the primary. Data were extracted using a standardized form by one reviewer and verified by a second reviewer. Studies were categorized by type of adaptations ('surface' and/or 'deep' structure) and mapped based on type of stakeholder engagement used in the research approach (i2S model), and end-user involvement (content, design, evaluation and dissemination) in KMb product creation or adaptation.

RESULTS

Ten thousand two hundred ninety-nine unique titles and abstracts were reviewed, 670 full-text studies were retrieved and reviewed, and 78 studies were included in final data extraction and mapping. Twenty-four studies (31%) created or adapted exclusively text-based KMb products such as leaflets and pamphlets and 49 (63%) produced digital products such as videos (n = 16, 33%), mobile applications (n = 14, 29%), and eHealth websites (n = 7, 14%). Twenty-five studies (32%) reported following a framework or theory for their creation or adaptation efforts. Twenty-eight studies (36%) engaged stakeholders in the research approach. Nearly all (96%) involved end-users in creating or adapting the KMb products through involvement in content development (n = 64), design features (n = 52), evaluation (n = 44) and dissemination (n = 20). Thirty-two (41%) studies included reflections from the research teams on the processes for creating or adapting KMb products for CALD communities.

CONCLUSION

Included studies cited a variety of methods to create or adapt KMb products for CALD communities. Successful uptake of created or adapted KMb products was often the result of collaboration and involvement with end-users for more applicable, accessible and meaningful products. Further research developing guidance and best practices is needed to support the creation or adaptation of KMb products with CALD communities.

REGISTRATION

Protocol submitted to Open Science Framework on August 16, 2022 ( https://osf.io/9jcw4/ ).

Mixed-Method Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Shared Decision-Making Tools for Cancer Screening

This review aimed to synthesize evidence on the effectiveness of shared decision-making (SDM) tools for cancer screening and explored the preferences of vulnerable people and clinicians regarding the specific characteristics of the SDM tools. A mixed-method convergent segregated approach was employed, which involved an independent synthesis of quantitative and qualitative data. Articles were systematically selected and screened, resulting in the inclusion and critical appraisal of 55 studies. Results from the meta-analysis revealed that SDM tools were more effective for improving knowledge, reducing decisional conflict, and increasing screening intentions among vulnerable populations compared to non-vulnerable populations. Subgroup analyses showed minimal heterogeneity for decisional conflict outcomes measured over a six-month period. Insights from the qualitative findings revealed the complexities of clinicians' and vulnerable populations' preferences for an SDM tool in cancer screening. Vulnerable populations highly preferred SDM tools with relevant information, culturally tailored content, and appropriate communication strategies. Clinicians, on the other hand, highly preferred tools that can be easily integrated into their medical systems for efficient use and can effectively guide their practice for cancer screening while considering patients' values. Considering the complexities of patients' and clinicians' preferences in SDM tool characteristics, fostering collaboration between patients and clinicians during the creation of an SDM tool for cancer screening is essential. This collaboration may ensure effective communication about the specific tool characteristics that best support the needs and preferences of both parties.

Factors Influencing Pregnant Women's Use of Patient Decision Aids and Decision Making on Prenatal Screening: A Qualitative Study

Objective: We aimed to identify factors influencing pregnant women’s use of patient decision aids (PtDA) and decision making on prenatal screening.

Materials and methods: This qualitative study was conducted between July 2019 and June 2020 in Tehran, Iran. The sample included 26 pregnant women selected by purposive sampling. The participants used a prenatal screening PtDA, then interviewed about factors that would influence their decision making and use of decision aids. The data were analyzed by conventional content analysis.

Results: Three categories were identified for the process of and factors influencing decision making, including the current decision making process, expected decision making process, and factors influencing decision making. Also, five categories were identified as factors affecting the use of PtDAs, including the content of decision aids, the appearance of decision aids, the decision aid platform, the provision of decision aids, and the sub features of decision aids.

Conclusion: To design, develop, and implementation of PtDAs for pregnant women, one should identify the factors affecting pregnant women’s decision making and the use of decision aids. This study helped to the identification of these factors, which is the first step towards the use of PtDAs by pregnant women and their participation in decision making.

Comparison of explicit values clarification method (VCM), implicit VCM and no VCM decision aids for men considering prostate cancer screening: protocol of a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test for prostate cancer is considered a preference sensitive decision; meaning it does not only depend on what is best from a medical point of view, but also from a patient value standpoint. Decision aids are evidence-based tools which are shown to help people feel clearer about their values; therefore it has been advocated that decision aids should contain a specific values clarification method (VCM). VCMs may be either implicit or explicit, but the evidence concerning the best method is scarce. We aim to compare the perceived clarity of personal values in men considering PSA screening using decision aids with no VCM versus an implicit VCM versus an explicit VCM.

METHODS

Male factory employees from an industrial facility in the Northern region of Portugal aged 50 to 69 years old will be randomly assigned to one of three decision aid groups used to support prostate cancer screening decisions: (i) decision aid with information only (control), (ii) decision aid with information plus an implicit VCM, (iii) decision aid with information plus an explicit VCM. Men will be allowed release time from work to attend a session at their workplace. After a brief oral presentation, those willing to participate in the study will fill the baseline questionnaire, plus a 5 point-Likert scale question about intentions to undergo screening, and will then receive the intervention materials to complete. We estimated a total sample size of 276 participants; with 92 in each group. The primary outcome will be the perceived clarity of personal values assessed by the Portuguese validated translation of the three subscales of the Decisional Conflict Scale. Secondary outcomes will be intention to be screened (before and after the intervention), the total score from the Decisional Conflict Scale and the self-report of having or not undergone screening at 6 months.

DISCUSSION

This study will add to the body of evidence on the role of decision aids to support health preference-sensitive choices and provide further insight on the impact of different methods for eliciting people's values embedded within a decision aid.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03988673 - clinicalTrials.gov (2019/06/17).