29
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      InformedTogether: Usability Evaluation of a Web-Based Decision Aid to Facilitate Shared Advance Care Planning for Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

      research-article

      Read this article at

      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

          Advance care planning may help patients receive treatments that better align with their goals for care. We developed a Web-based decision aid called InformedTogether to facilitate shared advance care planning between chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients and their doctors.

          Objective

          Our objective was to assess the usability of the InformedTogether decision aid, including whether users could interact with the decision aid to engage in tasks required for shared decision making, whether users found the decision aid acceptable, and implications for redesign.

          Methods

          We conducted an observational study with 15 patients and 8 doctors at two ethnically and socioeconomically diverse outpatient clinics. Data included quantitative and qualitative observations of patients and doctors using the decision aid on tablet or laptop computers and data from semistructured interviews. Patients were shown the decision aid by a researcher acting as the doctor. Pulmonary doctors were observed using the decision aid independently and asked to think aloud (ie, verbalize their thoughts). A thematic analysis was implemented to explore key issues related to decision aid usability.

          Results

          Although patients and doctors found InformedTogether acceptable and would recommend that doctors use the decision aid with COPD patients, many patients had difficulty understanding the icon arrays that were used to communicate estimated prognoses and could not articulate the definitions of the two treatment choices—Full Code and Do Not Resuscitate (DNR). Minor usability problems regarding content, links, layout, and consistency were also identified and corresponding recommendations were outlined. In particular, participants suggested including more information about potential changes in quality of life resulting from the alternative advance directives. Some doctor participants thought the decision aid was too long and some thought it may cause nervousness among patients due to the topic area.

          Conclusions

          A decision aid for shared advance care planning for severe COPD was found acceptable to most COPD patients and their doctors. However, many patient participants did not demonstrate understanding of the treatment options or prognostic estimates. Many participants endorsed the use of the decision aid between doctors and their patients with COPD, although they desired more information about quality of life. The design must optimize comprehensibility, including revising the presentation of statistical information in the icon array, and feasibility of integration into clinical workflow, including shortening the decision aid.

          Related collections

          Most cited references31

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

          A systematic development process for patient decision aids

          Background The original version of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) recommended that patient decision aids (PtDAs) should be carefully developed, user-tested and open to scrutiny, with a well-documented and systematically applied development process. We carried out a review to check the relevance and scope of this quality dimension and, if necessary, to update it. Methods Our review drew on three sources: a) published papers describing PtDAs evaluated in randomised controlled trials and included in the most recent Cochrane Collaboration review; b) linked papers cited in the trial reports that described how the PtDAs had been developed; and c) papers and web reports outlining the development process used by organisations experienced in developing multiple PtDAs. We then developed an extended model of the development process indicating the various steps on which documentation is required, as well as a checklist to assess the frequency with which each of the elements was publicly reported. Results Key features common to all patient decision aid (PtDA) development processes include: scoping and design; development of a prototype; ‘alpha’ testing with patients and clinicians in an iterative process; ‘beta’ testing in ‘real life’ conditions (field tests); and production of a final version for use and/or further evaluation. Only about half of the published reports on the development of PtDAs that we reviewed appear to have been field tested with patients, and even fewer had been reviewed or tested by clinicians not involved in the development process. Very few described a distribution strategy, and surprisingly few (17%) described a method for reviewing and synthesizing the clinical evidence. We describe a model development process that includes all the original elements of the original IPDAS criterion, expanded to include consideration of format and distribution plans as well as prototype development. Conclusions The case for including each of the elements outlined in our model development process is pragmatic rather than evidence-based. Optimal methods for ensuring that each stage of the process is carried out effectively require further development and testing.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Presenting quantitative information about decision outcomes: a risk communication primer for patient decision aid developers

            Background Making evidence-based decisions often requires comparison of two or more options. Research-based evidence may exist which quantifies how likely the outcomes are for each option. Understanding these numeric estimates improves patients’ risk perception and leads to better informed decision making. This paper summarises current “best practices” in communication of evidence-based numeric outcomes for developers of patient decision aids (PtDAs) and other health communication tools. Method An expert consensus group of fourteen researchers from North America, Europe, and Australasia identified eleven main issues in risk communication. Two experts for each issue wrote a “state of the art” summary of best evidence, drawing on the PtDA, health, psychological, and broader scientific literature. In addition, commonly used terms were defined and a set of guiding principles and key messages derived from the results. Results The eleven key components of risk communication were: 1) Presenting the chance an event will occur; 2) Presenting changes in numeric outcomes; 3) Outcome estimates for test and screening decisions; 4) Numeric estimates in context and with evaluative labels; 5) Conveying uncertainty; 6) Visual formats; 7) Tailoring estimates; 8) Formats for understanding outcomes over time; 9) Narrative methods for conveying the chance of an event; 10) Important skills for understanding numerical estimates; and 11) Interactive web-based formats. Guiding principles from the evidence summaries advise that risk communication formats should reflect the task required of the user, should always define a relevant reference class (i.e., denominator) over time, should aim to use a consistent format throughout documents, should avoid “1 in x” formats and variable denominators, consider the magnitude of numbers used and the possibility of format bias, and should take into account the numeracy and graph literacy of the audience. Conclusion A substantial and rapidly expanding evidence base exists for risk communication. Developers of tools to facilitate evidence-based decision making should apply these principles to improve the quality of risk communication in practice.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Reducing the influence of anecdotal reasoning on people's health care decisions: is a picture worth a thousand statistics?

              People's treatment decisions are often influenced by anecdotal rather than statistical information. This can lead to patients making decisions based on others' experiences rather than on evidence-based medicine. . To test whether the use of a quiz or pictograph decreases people's reliance on anecdotal information. . Two cross-sectional survey studies using hypothetical scenarios. Participants read a scenario describing angina and indicated a preference for either bypass surgery or balloon angioplasty. The cure rate of both treatments was presented using prose, a pictograph, a quiz, or a pictograph and quiz combination. Participants read anecdotes from hypothetical patients who described the outcome of their treatment; the number of successful anecdotes was either representative or unrepresentative of the cure rates. Setting and Participants. Prospective jurors at the Philadelphia County Courthouse and travelers at the Detroit-Wayne County Metropolitan Airport. Measurements. Proportion of respondents preferring bypass over balloon angioplasty. . In study 1, when statistical information was presented in prose, treatment choices were influenced by anecdotes, with 41% of participants choosing bypass when the anecdotes were representative and only 20% choosing it when the anecdotes were unrepresentative (x(2) = 14.40, P 0.20). In study 2, the tradeoff quiz did not reduce the impact of the anecdotes (27% v. 28% choosing bypass after receiving or not receiving the quiz, x(2) 0.20). However, the pictograph significantly reduced the impact of anecdotes, with 27% choosing bypass after receiving no pictograph and 40% choosing bypass after receiving a pictograph (x(2) = 6.44, P < 0.001). . Presenting statistical information using a pictograph can reduce the undue influence of anecdotal reasoning on treatment choices.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                JMIR Hum Factors
                JMIR Hum Factors
                JMIR Human Factors
                JMIR Human Factors
                Gunther Eysenbach (JMIR Publications Inc., Toronto, Canada )
                2292-9495
                Jan-Jun 2015
                25 February 2015
                : 2
                : 1
                : e2
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Department of Medicine Hofstra North Shore LIJ School of Medicine North Shore LIJ Health System Manhasset, NYUnited States
                [2] 2Pediatrics and Population and Family Health College of Physicians and Surgeons and Mailman School of Public Health Columbia University Medical Center New York, NYUnited States
                [3] 3International Family AIDS Global Health Program (IFAP) Columbia University Medical Center New York, NYUnited States
                [4] 4Sitesteaders Development Ypsilanti, MIUnited States
                [5] 5School of Health Information Science University of Victoria Victoria, BCCanada
                [6] 6Department of Family and Emergency Medicine Laval University Quebec City, QCCanada
                [7] 7Office of Education and Continuing Professional Development Faculty of Medicine Laval University Quebec City, QCCanada
                [8] 8Research Centre of the CHU de Québec Quebec City, QCCanada
                Author notes
                Corresponding Author: Negin Hajizadeh nhajizadeh@ 123456nshs.edu
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6485-8207
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7023-7156
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7000-9890
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0436-8094
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2557-9288
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0772-9075
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4192-0682
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6404-1018
                Article
                v2i1e2
                10.2196/humanfactors.3842
                4797670
                27025896
                3f69015a-f6af-4a44-9f50-812a6f8be58e
                ©Lauren M Uhler, Rafael E Pérez Figueroa, Mark Dickson, Lauren McCullagh, Andre Kushniruk, Helen Monkman, Holly O Witteman, Negin Hajizadeh. Originally published in JMIR Human Factors (http://humanfactors.jmir.org), 25.02.2015.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Human Factors, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://humanfactors.jmir.org, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

                History
                : 04 September 2014
                : 15 December 2014
                : 21 January 2015
                : 21 January 2015
                Categories
                Original Paper
                Original Paper

                usability testing,decision aid,shared decision making,copd,advance care planning

                Comments

                Comment on this article