Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25623074›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2015

User-centered design and the development of patient decision aids: protocol for a systematic review.

Holly O Witteman, Selma Chipenda Dansokho, Heather Colquhoun, Angela Coulter, Michèle Dugas, Angela Fagerlin, Anik Mc Giguere, Sholom Glouberman, Lynne Haslett, Aubri Hoffman and 13 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04140084 (Wiki Head CT Choice Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 102 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
102citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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.

NCT04140084 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2018, after this paper: background citation

Wiki Head CT Choice Study: Adaptation of Two Decision Aids to Support Shared Decision Making About Performing a Head CT for Adult and Pediatric Victims of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury

TypeinterventionalSponsorLaval UniversityRan2018 to 2020Enrolled40ConditionsMild Traumatic Brain Injury, Emergencies, Decision-makingArmsReal-life clinical meetings
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

102 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Teacher vaccinations enhance student achievement in Pakistan: The role of role models and theory of mind.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Trial
  5. BMJ open · 2018
    Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Technology-Supported Behavior Change-Applying Design Thinking to mHealth Application Development.European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

42 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

23 authors.

Holly O WittemanOffice of Education and Continuing Professional Development, Faculty of Medicine, Laval University, Pavillon Ferdinand-Vandry 2881, Quebec City, QC G1V 0A6, Canada. Holly.Witteman@fmed.ulaval.ca.
Selma Chipenda Dansokho
Heather Colquhoun
Angela Coulter
Michèle Dugas
Angela Fagerlin
Anik Mc Giguere
Sholom Glouberman
Lynne Haslett
Aubri Hoffman
Noah Ivers
France Légaré
Jean Légaré
Carrie Levin
Karli Lopez
Victor M Montori
Thierry Provencher
Jean-Sébastien Renaud
Kerri Sparling
Dawn Stacey
Gratianne Vaisson
Robert J Volk
William Witteman

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProviding patient-centered care requires that patients partner in their personal health-care decisions to the full extent desired. Patient decision aids facilitate processes of shared decision-making between patients and their clinicians by presenting relevant scientific information in balanced, understandable ways, helping clarify patients' goals, and guiding decision-making processes. Although international standards stipulate that patients and clinicians should be involved in decision aid development, little is known about how such involvement currently occurs, let alone best practices. This systematic review consisting of three interlinked subreviews seeks to describe current practices of user involvement in the development of patient decision aids, compare these to practices of user-centered design, and identify promising strategies. METHODS/

designA research team that includes patient and clinician representatives, decision aid developers, and systematic review method experts will guide this review according to the Cochrane Handbook and PRISMA reporting guidelines. A medical librarian will hand search key references and use a peer-reviewed search strategy to search MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, the ACM library, IEEE Xplore, and Google Scholar. We will identify articles across all languages and years describing the development or evaluation of a patient decision aid, or the application of user-centered design or human-centered design to tools intended for patient use. Two independent reviewers will assess article eligibility and extract data into a matrix using a structured pilot-tested form based on a conceptual framework of user-centered design. We will synthesize evidence to describe how research teams have included users in their development process and compare these practices to user-centered design methods. If data permit, we will develop a measure of the user-centeredness of development processes and identify practices that are likely to be optimal. DISCUSSION: This systematic review will provide evidence of current practices to inform approaches for involving patients and other stakeholders in the development of patient decision aids. We anticipate that the results will help move towards the establishment of best practices for the development of patient-centered tools and, in turn, help improve the experiences of people who face difficult health decisions. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42014013241.

Indexed as

Decision MakingDecision Support TechniquesHealth Services ResearchHumansPatient-Centered CarePatient Education as TopicPatient ParticipationSystematic Reviews as Topic

Identifiers

PMID25623074
PMCPMC4328638

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.