ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2012
Design and usability of heuristic-based deliberation tools for women facing amniocentesis.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Does an educational video for aneuploidy screening improve informed choice among pregnant women? A randomised controlled trial.Prenatal diagnosis · 2023Trial
- Interpretable clinical decision support systems in high-risk pregnancy: a scoping review of models, methods, and implementation.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- Usability and acceptability of a cognitive training intervention (SMART) for people with multiple sclerosis (MS): A prefeasibility formative evaluation.NIHR open research · 2022Article
- A global, incremental development method for a web-based prostate cancer treatment decision aid and usability testing in a Dutch clinical setting.Health informatics journal · 2019Article
- What are judgment skills in health literacy? A psycho-cognitive perspective of judgment and decision-making research.Patient preference and adherence · 2015Review
- Launching a virtual decision lab: development and field-testing of a web-based patient decision support research platform.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2014Article
- An introduction to infertility counseling: a guide for mental health and medical professionals.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2012Article
- Communication between health professionals and patients to shape decisions and ensure understanding. Editorial.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2012Article
- Adapting the Breast Cancer Surgery Decision Quality Instrument for Lower Socioeconomic Status: Improving Readability, Acceptability, and Relevance.MDM policy & practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEvidence suggests that in decision contexts characterized by uncertainty and time constraints (e.g. health-care decisions), fast and frugal decision-making strategies (heuristics) may perform better than complex rules of reasoning.
objectiveTo examine whether it is possible to design deliberation components in decision support interventions using simple models (fast and frugal heuristics).
designThe 'Take The Best' heuristic (i.e. selection of a 'most important reason') and 'The Tallying' integration algorithm (i.e. unitary weighing of pros and cons) were used to develop two deliberation components embedded in a Web-based decision support intervention for women facing amniocentesis testing. Ten researchers (recruited from 15), nine health-care providers (recruited from 28) and ten pregnant women (recruited from 14) who had recently been offered amniocentesis testing appraised evolving versions of 'your most important reason' (Take The Best) and 'weighing it up' (Tallying).
resultsMost researchers found the tools useful in facilitating decision making although emphasized the need for simple instructions and clear layouts. Health-care providers however expressed concerns regarding the usability and clarity of the tools. By contrast, 7 out of 10 pregnant women found the tools useful in weighing up the pros and cons of each option, helpful in structuring and clarifying their thoughts and visualizing their decision efforts. Several pregnant women felt that 'weighing it up' and 'your most important reason' were not appropriate when facing such a difficult and emotional decision.
conclusionTheoretical approaches based on fast and frugal heuristics can be used to develop deliberation tools that provide helpful support to patients facing real-world decisions about amniocentesis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.