Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

      Submit your digital health research with an established publisher
      - celebrating 25 years of open access

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Evaluating the Acceptability and Feasibility of a Sexual Health–Focused Contraceptive Decision Aid for Diverse Young Adults: User-Centered Usability Study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Young adults with low sexual health literacy levels may find it difficult to make informed decisions about contraceptive methods. We developed and pilot-tested a web-based decision aid—Healthy Sex Choices—designed to support diverse young adults with their contraceptive decision-making.

          Objective

          This pilot study aimed to evaluate whether the Healthy Sex Choices decision aid is acceptable and feasible to patients and clinicians.

          Methods

          We used the Ottawa Decision Support Framework and the International Patient Decision Aid Standards to develop and pilot the decision tool. We first conducted a needs assessment with our advisory panel (5 clinicians and 2 patients) that informed decision aid development. All panelists participated in semistructured interviews about their experience with contraceptive counseling. Clinicians also completed a focus group session centered around the development of sex education content for the tool. Before commencing the pilot study, 5 participants from ResearchMatch (Vanderbilt University Medical Center) assessed the tool and suggested improvements.

          Results

          Participants were satisfied with the tool, rating the acceptability as “good.” Interviewees revealed that the tool made contraceptive decision-making easier and would recommend the tool to a family member or friend. Participants had a nonsignificant change in knowledge scores (53% before vs 45% after; P=.99). Overall, decisional conflict scores significantly decreased (16.1 before vs 2.8 after; P<.001) with the informed subscale (patients feeling more informed) having the greatest decline (23.1 vs 4.7; mean difference 19.0, SD 27.1). Subanalyses of contraceptive knowledge and decisional conflict illustrated that participants of color had lower knowledge scores (48% vs 55%) and higher decisional conflict (20.0 vs 14.5) at baseline than their white counterparts.

          Conclusions

          Participants found Healthy Sex Choices to be acceptable and reported reduced decisional conflict after using the tool. The development and pilot phases of this study provided a foundation for creating reproductive health decision aids that acknowledge and provide guidance for diverse patient populations.

          Related collections

          Most cited references29

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Shared decision making--pinnacle of patient-centered care.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process.

            To develop a set of quality criteria for patient decision support technologies (decision aids). Two stage web based Delphi process using online rating process to enable international collaboration. Individuals from four stakeholder groups (researchers, practitioners, patients, policy makers) representing 14 countries reviewed evidence summaries and rated the importance of 80 criteria in 12 quality domains on a 1 to 9 scale. Second round participants received feedback from the first round and repeated their assessment of the 80 criteria plus three new ones. Aggregate ratings for each criterion calculated using medians weighted to compensate for different numbers in stakeholder groups; criteria rated between 7 and 9 were retained. 212 nominated people were invited to participate. Of those invited, 122 participated in the first round (77 researchers, 21 patients, 10 practitioners, 14 policy makers); 104/122 (85%) participated in the second round. 74 of 83 criteria were retained in the following domains: systematic development process (9/9 criteria); providing information about options (13/13); presenting probabilities (11/13); clarifying and expressing values (3/3); using patient stories (2/5); guiding/coaching (3/5); disclosing conflicts of interest (5/5); providing internet access (6/6); balanced presentation of options (3/3); using plain language (4/6); basing information on up to date evidence (7/7); and establishing effectiveness (8/8). Criteria were given the highest ratings where evidence existed, and these were retained. Gaps in research were highlighted. Developers, users, and purchasers of patient decision aids now have a checklist for appraising quality. An instrument for measuring quality of decision aids is being developed.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Validation of a Decisional Conflict Scale

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                JMIR Form Res
                JMIR Form Res
                JFR
                JMIR Formative Research
                JMIR Publications (Toronto, Canada )
                2561-326X
                2023
                3 October 2023
                : 7
                : e44170
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology Oregon Health & Science University Portland, OR United States
                [2 ] Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Oregon Health & Science University Portland, OR United States
                [3 ] Portland State University School of Public Health Oregon Health & Science University Portland, OR United States
                [4 ] Centro de Investigacion en Salud Poblacional (CISP) Insituto Nacional de Salud Publica (INSP) Cuernavaca Mexico
                [5 ] Value Institute for Health and Care Dell Medical School The University of Texas at Austin Austin, TX United States
                [6 ] Pacific Northwest Evidence-Based Practice Center Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology Oregon Health & Science University Portland, OR United States
                Author notes
                Corresponding Author: Rose Goueth gouethr@ 123456ochin.org
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0827-5159
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8120-028X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4803-8668
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8709-6292
                Article
                v7i1e44170
                10.2196/44170
                10582807
                37788070
                015174bb-6643-4e37-8f57-93c292e08bcf
                ©Rose Goueth, Blair Darney, Aubri Hoffman, Karen B Eden. Originally published in JMIR Formative Research (https://formative.jmir.org), 03.10.2023.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Formative Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://formative.jmir.org, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

                History
                : 16 December 2022
                : 23 June 2023
                : 24 July 2023
                : 4 August 2023
                Categories
                Original Paper
                Original Paper

                decision aid,contraception,decision-making,user-centered design,young adults,pilot study,feasibility,acceptability,development,support,tool,survey,sexual health

                Comments

                Comment on this article