Processes for evidence summarization for patient decision aids: A Delphi consensus study

BACKGROUND

Patient decision aids (PDAs) should provide evidence-based information so patients can make informed decisions. Yet, PDA developers do not have an agreed-upon process to select, synthesize and present evidence in PDAs.

OBJECTIVE

To reach the consensus on an evidence summarization process for PDAs.

DESIGN

A two-round modified Delphi survey.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

A group of international experts in PDA development invited developers, scientific networks, patient groups and listservs to complete Delphi surveys.

DATA COLLECTION

We emailed participants the study description and a link to the online survey. Participants were asked to rate each potential criterion (omit, possible, desirable, essential) and provide qualitative feedback.

ANALYSIS

Criteria in each round were retained if rated by >80% of participants as desirable or essential. If two or more participants suggested rewording, reordering or merging, the steering group considered the suggestion.

RESULTS

Following two Delphi survey rounds, the evidence summarization process included defining the decision, reporting the processes and policies of the evidence summarization process, assembling the editorial team and managing (collect, manage, report) their conflicts of interest, conducting a systematic search, selecting and appraising the evidence, presenting the harms and benefits in plain language, and describing the method of seeking external review and the plan for updating the evidence (search, selection and appraisal of new evidence).

CONCLUSION

A multidisciplinary stakeholder group reached consensus on an evidence summarization process to guide the creation of high-quality PDAs.

PATIENT CONTRIBUTION

A patient partner was part of the steering group and involved in the development of the Delphi survey.

Transforming primary care for older Canadians living with frailty: mixed methods study protocol for a complex primary care intervention

INTRODUCTION

Older Canadians living with frailty are high users of healthcare services; however, the healthcare system is not well designed to meet the complex needs of many older adults. Older persons look to their primary care practitioners to assess their needs and coordinate their care. They may need care from a variety of providers and services, but often this care is not well coordinated. Older adults and their family caregivers are the experts in their own needs and preferences, but often do not have a chance to participate fully in treatment decisions or care planning. As a result, older adults may have health problems that are not properly assessed, managed or treated, resulting in poorer health outcomes and higher economic and social costs. We will be implementing enhanced primary healthcare approaches for older patients, including risk screening, patient engagement and shared decision making and care coordination. These interventions will be tailored to the needs and circumstances of the primary care study sites. In this article, we describe our study protocol for implementing and testing these approaches.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Nine primary care sites in three Canadian provinces will participate in a multi-phase mixed methods study. In phase 1, baseline information will be collected through questionnaires and interviews with patients and healthcare providers (HCPs). In phase 2, HCPs and patients will be consulted to tailor the evidence-based interventions to site-specific needs and circumstances. In phase 3, sites will implement the tailored care model. Evaluation of the care model will include measures of patient and provider experience, a quality of life measure, qualitative interviews and economic evaluation.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has received ethics clearance from the host academic institutions: University of Calgary (REB17-0617), University of Waterloo (ORE#22446) and Université Laval (#MP-13-2019-1500 and 2017-2018-12-MP). Results will be disseminated through traditional means, including peer-reviewed publications and conferences and through an extensive network of knowledge user partners.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03442426;Pre-results.

An 11-Item Measure of User- and Human-Centered Design for Personal Health Tools (UCD-11): Development and Validation

BACKGROUND

Researchers developing personal health tools employ a range of approaches to involve prospective users in design and development.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this paper was to develop a validated measure of the human- or user-centeredness of design and development processes for personal health tools.

METHODS

We conducted a psychometric analysis of data from a previous systematic review of the design and development processes of 348 personal health tools. Using a conceptual framework of user-centered design, our team of patients, caregivers, health professionals, tool developers, and researchers analyzed how specific practices in tool design and development might be combined and used as a measure. We prioritized variables according to their importance within the conceptual framework and validated the resultant measure using principal component analysis with Varimax rotation, classical item analysis, and confirmatory factor analysis.

RESULTS

We retained 11 items in a 3-factor structure explaining 68% of the variance in the data. The Cronbach alpha was .72. Confirmatory factor analysis supported our hypothesis of a latent construct of user-centeredness. Items were whether or not: (1) patient, family, caregiver, or surrogate users were involved in the steps that help tool developers understand users or (2) develop a prototype, (3) asked their opinions, (4) observed using the tool or (5) involved in steps intended to evaluate the tool, (6) the process had 3 or more iterative cycles, (7) changes between cycles were explicitly reported, (8) health professionals were asked their opinion and (9) consulted before the first prototype was developed or (10) between initial and final prototypes, and (11) a panel of other experts was involved.

CONCLUSIONS

The User-Centered Design 11-item measure (UCD-11) may be used to quantitatively document the user/human-centeredness of design and development processes of patient-centered tools. By building an evidence base about such processes, we can help ensure that tools are adapted to people who will use them, rather than requiring people to adapt to tools.

Requirements for an Electronic Health Tool to Support the Process of Help Seeking by Caregivers of Functionally Impaired Older Adults: Co-Design Approach

Background

In Quebec, Canada, many public, community, and private organizations provide resources to caregivers of functionally impaired older adults. Nevertheless, these resources may be difficult for caregivers to find. A co-design study was conducted to address the gap between caregivers and access to resources. The purpose of this study was to support the process of help seeking by caregivers of functionally impaired older adults through electronic health (eHealth).

Objective

The purpose of this study was to focus on the identification of functional and content requirements for an eHealth tool to support the help-seeking process of caregivers of functionally impaired older adults.

Methods

This study uses a co-design process based on qualitative action research approach to develop an eHealth tool with health and social service professionals (HSSPs), community workers, and caregivers. The participants acted as co-designers in identifying requirements for the tool. A total of 4 design workshops and 1 advisory committee session were held in different locations in Quebec, Canada. Activities were videotaped and analyzed with a conceptual framework of user experience.

Results

A total of 11 caregivers, 16 community workers, and 11 HSSPs participated in identifying the requirements for the eHealth tool. Several functional and content requirements were identified for each user need (19). Content requirements differed depending on the category of participant, corresponding to the concept of user segmentation in the design of information and communication technology. Nevertheless, there were disagreements among co-designers about specific functionalities, which included (1) functionalities related to the social Web, (2) functionalities related to the evaluation of resources for caregivers, and (3) functionalities related to the emerging technologies. Several co-design sessions were required to resolve disagreements.

Conclusions

Co-designers (participants) were able to identify functional and content requirements for each of the previously identified needs; however, several discussions were required to achieve consensus. Decision making was influenced by identity, social context, and participants’ knowledge, and it is a challenge to reconcile the different perspectives. The findings stressed the importance of allowing more time to deal with the iterative aspect of the design activity, especially during the identification of requirements of an eHealth tool.

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

RR2-10.2196/11634

Prioritizing the Needs of Caregivers of Older Adults to Support Their Help-Seeking Process as a First Step to Developing an eHealth Tool: The Technique for Research of Information by Animation of a Group of Experts (TRIAGE) Method

BACKGROUND

Caregivers of functionally dependent older persons sometimes seek formal services to support their relatives. However, this process of help-seeking is complex.

OBJECTIVE

The overall aim of the study was to use a co-design approach to develop an electronic health (eHealth) tool to support caregivers in their process of help-seeking. This study presents the first step of the design phase, which aimed to prioritize the user needs to be considered during the development of an eHealth tool.

METHODS

A total of 3 groups of caregivers, community workers, and health and social service professionals participated in either a co-design session (1 or 2) or an advisory committee in 2 rural areas and 1 urban area. The needs identified in the academic literature and during a previous study were sorted (Technique for Research of Information by Animation of a Group of Experts [TRIAGE] method) by the participants (referred to in this study as co-designers) to obtain a consensus on those to be prioritized. Needs identified, grouped, and removed were ranked and compared.

RESULTS

Of the initial list of 32 needs, 12 were modified or merged, 3 added, and 7 deleted as the co-designers felt that the needs were poorly formulated, redundant, irrelevant, or impossible to meet. In the end, 19 needs were identified for the design of the eHealth tool.

CONCLUSIONS

Many of the identified needs are informational (eg, having access to up-to-date information) and are probably met by existing tools. However, many others are emotional (eg, being encouraged to use the services) and offer an interesting challenge to eHealth tool development.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

RR2-10.2196/11634.

Psychosocial Factors of Health Professionals' Intention to Use a Decision Aid for Down Syndrome Screening: Cross-Sectional Quantitative Study

Background

Decisions about prenatal screening for Down syndrome are difficult for women, as they entail risk, potential loss, and regret. Shared decision making increases women’s knowledge of their choices and better aligns decisions with their values. Patient decision aids foster shared decision making but are rarely used in this context.

Objective

One of the most promising strategies for implementing shared decision making is distribution of decision aids by health professionals. We aimed to identify factors influencing their intention to use a DA during prenatal visit for decisions about Down syndrome screening.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional quantitative study. Using a Web panel, we conducted a theory-based survey of health professionals in Quebec province (Canada). Eligibility criteria were as follows: (1) family physicians, midwives, obstetrician-gynecologists, or trainees in these professions; (2) involved in prenatal care; and (3) working in Quebec province. Participants watched a video depicting a health professional using a decision aid during a prenatal consultation with a woman and her partner, and then answered a questionnaire based on an extended version of the theory of planned behavior, including some of the constructs of the theoretical domains framework. The questionnaire assessed 8 psychosocial constructs (attitude, anticipated regret, subjective norm, self-identity, moral norm, descriptive norm, self-efficacy, and perceived control), 7 related sets of behavioral beliefs (advantages, disadvantages, emotions, sources of encouragement or discouragement, incentives, facilitators, and barriers), and sociodemographic data. We performed descriptive, bivariate, and multiple linear regression analyses to identify factors influencing health professionals’ intention to use a decision aid.

Results

Among 330 health professionals who completed the survey, 310 met the inclusion criteria: family physicians, 55.2% (171/310); obstetrician-gynecologists, 33.8% (105/310); and midwives, 11.0% (34/310). Of these, 80.9% were female (251/310). Mean age was 39.6 (SD 11.5) years. Less than half were aware of any decision aids at all. In decreasing order of importance, factors influencing their intention to use a decision aid for Down syndrome prenatal screening were as follows: self-identity (beta=.325, P<.001), attitude (beta=.297, P<.001), moral norm (beta=.288, P<.001), descriptive norm (beta=.166, P<.001), and anticipated regret (beta=.099, P=.003). Underlying behavioral beliefs significantly related to intention were that the use of a decision aid would promote decision making (beta=.117, 95% CI 0.043-0.190), would reassure health professionals (beta=.100, 95% CI 0.024-0.175), and might require more time than planned for the consultation (beta=−.077, 95% CI −0.124 to −0.031).

Conclusions

We identified psychosocial factors that could influence health professionals’ intention to use a decision aid about Down syndrome screening. Strategies should remind them of the following: (1) using a decision aid for this purpose should be a common practice, (2) it would be expected of someone in their societal role, (3) the experience of using it will be satisfying and reassuring, and (4) it is likely to be compatible with their moral values.

Caring for seniors living with dementia means caring for their caregivers too

To improve the care of seniors living with dementia, current initiatives typically target better identification and treatment of the patient. Our recent survey, however, shows we should also focus more on the needs of the informal caregivers who care for this population in primary care settings. This three-round Delphi survey sought caregivers' views on the most frequent and difficult decisions that seniors with dementia, their informal caregivers, and health care providers face in primary care settings in the province of Quebec. Respondents consisted of 31 health care professionals, informal caregivers, managers, representatives of community-based organizations devoted to these seniors, and clinical researchers involved in the organization of care or services to seniors with dementia. When we asked respondents to rank 27 common but difficult decisions involving benefit/harm trade-offs, 83% ranked the decision to choose an option to reduce the burden of informal caregivers as one of the five most important decisions. Choosing a treatment to manage agitation, aggression or psychotic symptoms followed closely, with 79% of respondents selecting it as one of the five most important decisions. Our results point to the importance of attending to the needs of informal caregivers and improving the management of behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia.

Feasibility of a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the impact of decision boxes on shared decision-making processes

Background

Decision boxes (DBoxes) are two-page evidence summaries to prepare clinicians for shared decision making (SDM). We sought to assess the feasibility of a clustered Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) to evaluate their impact.

Methods

A convenience sample of clinicians (nurses, physicians and residents) from six primary healthcare clinics who received eight DBoxes and rated their interest in the topic and satisfaction. After consultations, their patients rated their involvement in decision-making processes (SDM-Q-9 instrument). We measured clinic and clinician recruitment rates, questionnaire completion rates, patient eligibility rates, and estimated the RCT needed sample size.

Results

Among the 20 family medicine clinics invited to participate in this study, four agreed to participate, giving an overall recruitment rate of 20%. Of 148 clinicians invited to the study, 93 participated (63%). Clinicians rated an interest in the topics ranging 6.4-8.2 out of 10 (with 10 highest) and a satisfaction with DBoxes of 4 or 5 out of 5 (with 5 highest) for 81% DBoxes. For the future RCT, we estimated that a sample size of 320 patients would allow detecting a 9% mean difference in the SDM-Q-9 ratings between our two arms (0.02 ICC; 0.05 significance level; 80% power).

Conclusions

Clinicians’ recruitment and questionnaire completion rates support the feasibility of the planned RCT. The level of interest of participants for the DBox topics, and their level of satisfaction with the Dboxes demonstrate the acceptability of the intervention. Processes to recruit clinics and patients should be optimized.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12911-015-0134-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

User-centered design and the development of patient decision aids: protocol for a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Providing patient-centered care requires that patients partner in their personal health-care decisions to the full extent desired. Patient decision aids facilitate processes of shared decision-making between patients and their clinicians by presenting relevant scientific information in balanced, understandable ways, helping clarify patients' goals, and guiding decision-making processes. Although international standards stipulate that patients and clinicians should be involved in decision aid development, little is known about how such involvement currently occurs, let alone best practices. This systematic review consisting of three interlinked subreviews seeks to describe current practices of user involvement in the development of patient decision aids, compare these to practices of user-centered design, and identify promising strategies.

METHODS/DESIGN

A research team that includes patient and clinician representatives, decision aid developers, and systematic review method experts will guide this review according to the Cochrane Handbook and PRISMA reporting guidelines. A medical librarian will hand search key references and use a peer-reviewed search strategy to search MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, the ACM library, IEEE Xplore, and Google Scholar. We will identify articles across all languages and years describing the development or evaluation of a patient decision aid, or the application of user-centered design or human-centered design to tools intended for patient use. Two independent reviewers will assess article eligibility and extract data into a matrix using a structured pilot-tested form based on a conceptual framework of user-centered design. We will synthesize evidence to describe how research teams have included users in their development process and compare these practices to user-centered design methods. If data permit, we will develop a measure of the user-centeredness of development processes and identify practices that are likely to be optimal.

DISCUSSION

This systematic review will provide evidence of current practices to inform approaches for involving patients and other stakeholders in the development of patient decision aids. We anticipate that the results will help move towards the establishment of best practices for the development of patient-centered tools and, in turn, help improve the experiences of people who face difficult health decisions.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42014013241.