Decision boxes for clinicians to support evidence-based practice and shared decision making: the user experience

Implementation Science

Michel Labrecque⁴  Juliana Alvarez Argote²  François Rousseau⁴  Michel Cauchon³  R Brian Haynes⁵  Pierre Pluye¹  Roland Grad¹  France Légaré⁴  Anik Giguere⁶ 

[1] Department of Family Medicine, McGill University, 515-517 Pine Avenue West, Montreal, (QC), H2W lS4, Canada;Universidad del Valle, Calle 4B No. 36 – 00 Edificio 100 1er piso, Cali, Colombia;Department of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, University Laval, 1050 avenue de la Médecine, Room#4617, Quebec, (QC), G1V 0A6, Canada;Research Center of the CHUQ, Saint-Francois d’Assise Hospital, 10 rue de l’Espinay, D6-730, Quebec City, (QC), G1L 3 L5, Canada;Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics and Department of Medicine, DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West CRL-125, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4 K1, Canada;Health Information Research Unit, Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, CRL-139 1280 Main Street, West Hamilton, ON L8S 4 K1, Canada

关键词: Communication design;    Knowledge translation;    Decision support;    Clinical topic summary;    Counselling;    Patient-centered care;    Usability;    Risk communication;    User experience;    Evidence-based medicine;   

Others  :  814700
DOI  :  10.1186/1748-5908-7-72

 received in 2011-12-05, accepted in 2012-06-25,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

This project engages patients and physicians in the development of Decision Boxes, short clinical topic summaries covering medical questions that have no single best answer. Decision Boxes aim to prepare the clinician to communicate the risks and benefits of the available options to the patient so they can make an informed decision together.

Methods

Seven researchers (including four practicing family physicians) selected 10 clinical topics relevant to primary care practice through a Delphi survey. We then developed two one-page prototypes on two of these topics: prostate cancer screening with the prostate-specific antigen test, and prenatal screening for trisomy 21 with the serum integrated test. We presented the prototypes to purposeful samples of family physicians distributed in two focus groups, and patients distributed in four focus groups. We used the User Experience Honeycomb to explore barriers and facilitators to the communication design used in Decision Boxes. All discussions were transcribed, and three researchers proceeded to thematic content analysis of the transcriptions. The coding scheme was first developed from the Honeycomb’s seven themes (valuable, usable, credible, useful, desirable, accessible, and findable), and included new themes suggested by the data. Prototypes were modified in light of our findings.

Results

Three rounds were necessary for a majority of researchers to select 10 clinical topics. Fifteen physicians and 33 patients participated in the focus groups. Following analyses, three sections were added to the Decision Boxes: introduction, patient counseling, and references. The information was spread to two pages to try to make the Decision Boxes less busy and improve users’ first impression. To try to improve credibility, we gave more visibility to the research institutions involved in development. A statement on the boxes’ purpose and a flow chart representing the shared decision-making process were added with the intent of clarifying the tool’s purpose. Information about the risks and benefits according to risk levels was added to the Decision Boxes, to try to ease the adaptation of the information to individual patients.

Conclusion

Results will guide the development of the eight remaining Decision Boxes. A future study will evaluate the effect of Decision Boxes on the integration of evidence-based and shared decision making principles in clinical practice.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Giguere et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]BMJ Publishing group: How much do we know?. 2011. from http://clinicalevidence.bmj.com/ceweb/about/knowledge.jsp webcite
• [2]Wennberg JE: Unwarranted variations in healthcare delivery: implications for academic medical centres. Brit Med J 2002, 325:961-964.
• [3]Montori VM, Guyatt GH: Progress in evidence-based medicine. J Amer Med Assoc 2008, 300:1814-1816.
• [4]Edwards A, Elwyn G, Covey J, Matthews E, Pill R: Presenting risk information - A review of the effects of ‘framing’ and other manipulations on patient outcomes. J Health Commun 2001, 6:61-82.
• [5]Stacey D, Bennett CL, Barry M, Col NF, Eden KB, Holmes-Rovner M, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Lyddiatt A, Légaré F, Thomson R: Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011, 5(10):CD001431.
• [6]Evans R, Edwards A, Brett J, Bradburn M, Watson E, Austoker J, Elwyn G: Reduction in uptake of PSA tests following decision aids: systematic review of current aids and their evaluations. Patient Educ Couns 2005, 58:13-26.
• [7]Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T: Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Soc Sci Med 1997, 44:681-692.
• [8]Légaré F: Inventory of Shared Decision Making Programs for Healthcare Professionals. http://decision.chaire.fmed.ulaval.ca/index.php?id=180&L=2 webcite
• [9]Harter M, van der Weijden T, Elwyn G: Policy and practice developments in the implementation of shared decision making: an international perspective. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes 2011, 105:229-233.
• [10]Banzi R, Liberati A, Moschetti I, Tagliabue L, Moja L: A review of online evidence-based practice point-of-care information summary providers. J Med Internet Res 2010, 12:e26.
• [11]Haynes B: Of studies, syntheses, synopses, summaries, and systems: the ‘5 S’ evolution of information services for evidence-based healthcare decisions. Evid Based Nurs 2007, 10:6-7.
• [12]Giguere A, Legare F, Grad R, Pluye P, Rousseau F, Haynes RB, Cauchon M, Labrecque M: Developing and user-testing Decision boxes to facilitate shared decision making in primary care - a study protocol. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2011, 11:17. BioMed Central Full Text
• [13]Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Welch HG: The drug facts box: providing consumers with simple tabular data on drug benefit and harm. Med Decis Making 2007, 27:655-662.
• [14]Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, Norris S, Falck-Ytter Y, Glasziou P, DeBeer H, et al.: GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol 2011, 64:383-394.
• [15]Morville P: User experience Design. http://www.semanticstudios.com/publications/semantics/000029.php webcite
• [16]O’Connor AM: Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Med Decis Making 1995, 15:25-30.
• [17]Pluye P, Grad RM, Johnson-Lafleur J, Bambrick T, Burnand B, Mercer J, Marlow B, Campbell C: Evaluation of email alerts in practice: Part 2 - validation of the information assessment method. J Eval Clin Pract 2010, 16:1236-1243.
• [18]Ajzen I: The theory of planned behavior. Organ behav hum 1991, 50:179-211.
• [19]Venkatesh V, Davis FD: A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Manage Sci 2000, 46:186-204.
• [20]Fereday J, Muir-Cochrane E: Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2006, 5:80-92.
• [21]The College of Family Physicians of Canada, Canadian Medical Association: The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada: National Physician Survey. http://www.nationalphysiciansurvey.ca/nps/2010_Survey/2010nps-e.asp webcite
• [22]Grandage KK, Slawson DC, Shaughnessy AF: When less is more: a practical approach to searching for evidence-based answers. J Med Libr Assoc 2002, 90:298-304.
• [23]Wang R, Bartlett G, Grad R, Pluye P: The cognitive impact of research synopses on physicians: a prospective observational analysis of evidence-based summaries sent by email. Inform Prim Care 2009, 17:79-86.
• [24]Peters E, Dieckmann N, Dixon A, Hibbard JH, Mertz CK: Less is more in presenting quality information to consumers. Med Care Res Rev 2007, 64:169-190.
• [25]Wathen CN, Burkell J: Believe it or not: Factors influencing credibility on the Web. J Am Soc Inf Sci Tech 2002, 53:134-144.
• [26]Tseng S, Fogg B: Credibility and computing technology. Communications of the ACM 1999, 42:39-44.
• [27]Rosenbaum SE, Glenton C, Nylund HK, Oxman AD: User testing and stakeholder feedback contributed to the development of understandable and useful Summary of Findings tables for Cochrane reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2010, 63:607-619.
• [28]Rosenbaum SE: Improving the user experience of evidence: a design approach to evidence-informed healthcare. PhD thesis. The Oslo School of Architecture and Design, Oslo, Norway; 2010.
• [29]Rosenbaum SE, Glenton C, Oxman AD: Summary-of-findings tables in Cochrane reviews improved understanding and rapid retrieval of key information. J Clin Epidemiol 2010, 63:620-626.
• [30]Elwyn G, O’Connor AM, Bennett C, Newcombe RG, Politi M, Durand MA, Drake E, Joseph-Williams N, Khangura S, Saarimaki A, et al.: Assessing the quality of decision support technologies using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards instrument (IPDASi). PLoS One 2009, 4:e4705.
• [31]Woloshin S, Schwartz LM: Communicating data about the benefits and harms of treatment: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2011, 155:87-96.
• [32]Carling CL, Kristoffersen DT, Flottorp S, Fretheim A, Oxman AD, Schunemann HJ, Akl EA, Herrin J, MacKenzie TD, Montori VM: The effect of alternative graphical displays used to present the benefits of antibiotics for sore throat on decisions about whether to seek treatment: a randomized trial. PLoS Med 2009, 6:e1000140.
• [33]Ancker JS, Senathirajah Y, Kukafka R, Starren JB: Design features of graphs in health risk communication: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2006, 13:608-618.
• [34]Epstein RM, Alper BS, Quill TE: Communicating evidence for participatory decision making. J Amer Med Assoc 2004, 291:2359-2366.
• [35]Marriott S, Palmer C, Lelliott P: Disseminating healthcare information: getting the message across. Qual Health Care 2000, 9:58-62.
• [36]Edwards AGK, Evans R, Dundon J, Haigh S, Hood K, Elwyn GJ: Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006.
• [37]Hill S, Spink J, Cadilhac D, Edwards A, Kaufman C, Rogers S, Ryan R, Tonkin A: Absolute risk representation in cardiovascular disease prevention: comprehension and preferences of healthcare consumers and general practitioners involved in a focus group study. BMC Public Health 2010, 10:108. BioMed Central Full Text