Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25263630›Full record

Trial reportHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2015

An exploratory mixed-methods crossover study comparing DVD- vs. Web-based patient decision support in three conditions: The importance of patient perspectives.

Meghan C Halley, Katharine A S Rendle, Katherine A Gillespie, Katherine M Stanley, Dominick L Frosch

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Comparative Effectiveness of Two Interventions to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening for Those at Increased Risk Based on Family History: Results of a Randomized Trial.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2020
    Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

5 authors.

Meghan C HalleyPalo Alto Medical Foundation Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Katharine A S RendlePalo Alto Medical Foundation Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Katherine A GillespiePalo Alto Medical Foundation Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Katherine M StanleyPalo Alto Medical Foundation Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Dominick L FroschPalo Alto Medical Foundation Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe last 15 years have witnessed considerable progress in the development of decision support interventions (DESIs). However, fundamental questions about design and format of delivery remain.

methodsAn exploratory, randomized mixed-method crossover study was conducted to compare a DVD- and Web-based DESI. Randomized participants used either the Web or the DVD first, followed by the alternative format. Participants completed a questionnaire to assess decision-specific knowledge at baseline and a questionnaire and structured qualitative interview after viewing each format. Tracking software was used to capture Web utilization. Transcripts were analyzed using integrated inductive and deductive approaches. Quantitative data were analyzed using exploratory bivariate and multivariate analyses.

resultsExploratory knowledge analyses suggest that both formats increased knowledge, with limited evidence that the DVD increased knowledge more than the Web. Format preference varied across participants: 44% preferred the Web, 32% preferred the DVD and 24% preferred 'both'. Patient discussions of preferences for DESI information structure and the importance of a patients' stage of a given decision suggest these characteristics may be important factors underlying variation in utilization, format preferences and knowledge outcomes.

conclusionsOur results suggest that both DESI formats effectively increase knowledge. Patients' perceptions of these two formats further suggest that there may be no single 'best' format for all patients. These results have important implications for understanding why different DESI formats might be preferable to and more effective for different patients. Further research is needed to explore the relationship between these factors and DESI utilization outcomes across diverse patient populations.

Indexed as

Attitude to HealthDecision Support TechniquesInternetVideo RecordingAgedColorectal NeoplasmsCross-Over StudiesDiabetes MellitusEarly Detection of CancerHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedPatient Education as TopicProstatic HyperplasiaSurveys and Questionnairesdecision aidspatient engagementpatient preferencesqualitative research

Identifiers

PMID25263630
PMCPMC5810733

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.