Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17627930›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2007

Toward a model for field-testing patient decision-support technologies: a qualitative field-testing study.

Rhodri Evans, Glyn Elwyn, Adrian Edwards, Eila Watson, Joan Austoker, Richard Grol

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
7.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. A systematic development process for patient decision aids.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2013
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Design and usability of heuristic-based deliberation tools for women facing amniocentesis.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2012
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Early decision and psychosocial support intervention for men with localised prostate cancer: an integrated approach.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2008
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Rhodri EvansDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, UK. evansr10@cardiff.ac.uk
Glyn Elwyn
Adrian Edwards
Eila Watson
Joan Austoker
Richard Grol
Cardiff University · GBCancer Research UK · GBOxford Brookes University · GBRadboud University Nijmegen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundField-testing is a quality assurance criterion in the development of patient decision-support technologies (PDSTs), as identified in the consensus statement of the International Patient Decision Aids Standards Collaboration. We incorporated field-testing into the development of a Web-based, prostate-specific antigen PDST called Prosdex, which was commissioned as part of the UK Prostate Cancer Risk Management Programme.

objectivesThe aim of this study was to develop a model for the future field-testing of PDSTs, based on the field-testing of Prosdex. Our objectives were (1) to explore the reactions of men to evolving prototypes of Prosdex, (2) to assess the effect of these responses on the development process, and (3) to develop a model for field-testing PDSTs based on the responses and their effect on the development process.

methodsSemistructured interviews were conducted with the men after they had viewed evolving prototypes of Prosdex in their homes. The men were grouped according to the prototype viewed. Men between 40 and 75 years of age were recruited from two family practices in different parts of Wales, United Kingdom. In the interviews, the men were asked for their views on Prosdex, both as a whole and in relation to specific sections such as the introduction and video clips. Comments and technical issues that arose during the viewings were noted and fed back to the developers in order to produce subsequent prototypes.

resultsA total of 27 men were interviewed, in five groups, according to the five prototypes of Prosdex that were developed. The two main themes from the interviews were the responses to the information provided in Prosdex and the responses to specific features of Prosdex. Within these themes, two of the most frequently encountered categories were detail of the information provided and balance between contrasting viewpoints. Criticisms were encountered, particularly with respect to navigation of the site. In addition, we found that participants made little use of the decision-making scale. The introduction of an interactive contents page to prototype 2 was the main change made to Prosdex as a result of the field-testing. Based on our findings, a model for the field-testing of PDSTs was developed, involving an exploratory field-testing stage between the planning stage and the development of the first prototype, and followed by the prototype field-testing stage, leading to the final PDST.

conclusionsIn the field-testing of Prosdex, a Web-based prostate-specific antigen PDST, the responses of interviewed men were generally favorable. As a consequence of the responses, an interactive contents page was added to the site. We developed a model for the future field-testing of PDSTs, involving two stages: exploratory field-testing and prototype field-testing.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesEvaluation Studies as TopicModels, TheoreticalAdultAgedHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansInternetInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedPatient ParticipationPatient SatisfactionProstatic NeoplasmsQualitative ResearchRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID17627930
PMCPMC2047286
OpenAlexW2010568916

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.