Citizen advisory groups for the creation and improvement of decision aids: experience from two Swiss centers for primary care

Research Involvement and Engagement

Kevin Selby¹  Regula Cardinaux¹  Reto Auer²  Marie-Anne Durand³  Janine Chabloz⁴  Beatrice Metry⁵  Simone de Rougemont⁶  Verena Meier-Herrmann⁷  Jürg Stoller⁸ 

[1] Center for primary care and public health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Rue de Bugnon 44, 1010, Lausanne, Switzerland;Center for primary care and public health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Rue de Bugnon 44, 1010, Lausanne, Switzerland;Institute of primary health care (BIHAM), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland;Center for primary care and public health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Rue de Bugnon 44, 1010, Lausanne, Switzerland;University of Toulouse, Toulouse, France;The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Dartmouth College, Lebanon, NH, USA;Ecublens, Switzerland;Institute of primary health care (BIHAM), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland;Lausanne, Switzerland;Mörigen, Switzerland;Münsingen, Switzerland;

关键词: Decision aids;    Participatory research;    Citizen involvement;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s40900-021-00283-0

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundGuidelines for patient decision aids (DA) recommend target population involvement throughout the development process, but developers may struggle because of limited resources. We sought to develop a feasible means of getting repeated feedback from users.MethodsBetween 2017 and 2020, two Swiss centers for primary care (Lausanne and Bern) created citizen advisory groups to contribute to multiple improvement cycles for colorectal, prostate and lung cancer screening DAs. Following Community Based Participatory Research principles, we collaborated with local organizations to recruit citizens aged 50 to 75 without previous cancer diagnoses. We remunerated incidental costs and participant time. One center supplemented in-person meetings by mailed paper questionnaires, while the other supplemented meetings using small-group workshops and analyses of meeting transcripts.ResultsIn Lausanne, we received input from 49 participants for three DAs between 2017 and 2020. For each topic, participants gave feedback on the initial draft and 2 subsequent versions during in-person meetings with ~ 8 participants and one round of mailed questionnaires. In Bern, 10 participants were recruited among standardized patients from the university, all of whom attended in-person meetings every three months between 2017 and 2020. At both sites, numerous changes were made to the content, appearance, language, and tone of DAs and outreach materials. Participants reported high levels of satisfaction with the participative process.ConclusionsCitizen advisory groups are a feasible means of repeatedly incorporating end-user feedback during the creation of multiple DAs. Methodological differences between the two centers underline the need for a flexible model adapted to local needs.

【 授权许可】

CC BY