Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28103862›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2017

Involving members of vulnerable populations in the development of patient decision aids: a mixed methods sequential explanatory study.

Michèle Dugas, Marie-Ève Trottier, Selma Chipenda Dansokho, Gratianne Vaisson, Thierry Provencher, Heather Colquhoun, Maman Joyce Dogba, Sophie Dupéré, Angela Fagerlin, Anik M C Giguere and 11 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
13.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. BMJ open · 2018
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Increasing Engagement of Women Veterans in Health Research.Journal of general internal medicine · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Systematic Development of Patient Decision Aids: An Update from the IPDAS Collaboration.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. How to improve care across boundaries.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2020
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

21 authors at 9 institutions in 2 countries.

Michèle DugasOffice of Education and Professional Development, Faculty of Medicine, Laval University, 1050 avenue de la Médecine, Quebec City, QC, G1V 0A6, Canada.
Marie-Ève TrottierOffice of Education and Professional Development, Faculty of Medicine, Laval University, 1050 avenue de la Médecine, Quebec City, QC, G1V 0A6, Canada.
Selma Chipenda DansokhoOffice of Education and Professional Development, Faculty of Medicine, Laval University, 1050 avenue de la Médecine, Quebec City, QC, G1V 0A6, Canada.
Gratianne VaissonOffice of Education and Professional Development, Faculty of Medicine, Laval University, 1050 avenue de la Médecine, Quebec City, QC, G1V 0A6, Canada.
Thierry ProvencherOffice of Education and Professional Development, Faculty of Medicine, Laval University, 1050 avenue de la Médecine, Quebec City, QC, G1V 0A6, Canada.
Heather ColquhounDepartment of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, 160-500 University Ave, Toronto, ON, M5G 1V7, Canada.
Maman Joyce DogbaDepartment of Family and Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Laval University, 1050 avenue de la Médecine, Quebec City, QC, G1V 0A6, Canada.
Sophie DupéréFaculty of Nursing, Laval University, 1050 avenue de la Médecine, Quebec City, QC, G1V 0A6, Canada.
Angela FagerlinDepartment of Population Health Sciences, University of Utah, 295 Chipeta Way, Williams Building, Room 1C448, Salt Lake City, UT, 84132, USA.
Anik M C GiguereOffice of Education and Professional Development, Faculty of Medicine, Laval University, 1050 avenue de la Médecine, Quebec City, QC, G1V 0A6, Canada.
Lynne HaslettEast End Community Health Centre, 1619 Queen Street East, Toronto, ON, M4L 1G4, Canada.
Aubri S HoffmanDepartment of Health Services Research, The MD Anderson Cancer Center, FCT9.5028, 1400 Pressler Street, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
Noah M IversFamily Practice Health Centre, Institute for Health Systems Solutions and Virtual Care and Women's College Research Institute, Women's College Hospital, 76 Grenville St, Toronto, ON, M5S1B2, Canada.
France LégaréResearch Centre of the CHU de Québec, 1050 avenue de la Médecine, Quebec City, QC, G1V 0A6, Canada.
Jean LégaréPatient Partner, 403 rue des Érables, Neuville, Québec, G0A 2R0, Canada.
Carrie A LevinHealthwise, Incorporated, 40 Court St, Suite 300, Boston, MA, 02108, USA.
Matthew MenearDepartment of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Laval University, 1050 avenue de la Médecine, Quebec, QC, G1V 0A6, Canada.
Jean-Sébastien RenaudOffice of Education and Professional Development, Faculty of Medicine, Laval University, 1050 avenue de la Médecine, Quebec City, QC, G1V 0A6, Canada.
Dawn StaceySchool of Nursing and Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, 451 Smyth Road, Ottawa, ON, K1H8M5, Canada.
Robert J VolkDepartment of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1400 Pressler St., Houston, TX, 77230, USA.
Holly O WittemanOffice of Education and Professional Development, Faculty of Medicine, Laval University, 1050 avenue de la Médecine, Quebec City, QC, G1V 0A6, Canada. holly.witteman@fmed.ulaval.ca.
Université Laval · CACentre hospitalier universitaire de Québec · CAThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USUniversity of Toronto · CAHealthwise · USHôpital du Saint-Sacrement · CAOttawa Hospital · CARegent Park Community Health Centre · CAUniversity of Utah · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient decision aids aim to present evidence relevant to a health decision in understandable ways to support patients through the process of making evidence-informed, values-congruent health decisions. It is recommended that, when developing these tools, teams involve people who may ultimately use them. However, there is little empirical evidence about how best to undertake this involvement, particularly for specific populations of users such as vulnerable populations.

methodsTo describe and compare the development practices of research teams that did and did not specifically involve members of vulnerable populations in the development of patient decision aids, we conducted a secondary analysis of data from a systematic review about the development processes of patient decision aids. Then, to further explain our quantitative results, we conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with 10 teams: 6 that had specifically involved members of vulnerable populations and 4 that had not. Two independent analysts thematically coded transcribed interviews.

resultsOut of a total of 187 decision aid development projects, 30 (16%) specifically involved members of vulnerable populations. The specific involvement of members of vulnerable populations in the development process was associated with conducting informal needs assessment activities (73% vs. 40%, OR 2.96, 95% CI 1.18-7.99, P = .02) and recruiting participants through community-based organizations (40% vs. 11%, OR 3.48, 95% CI 1.23-9.83, P = .02). In interviews, all developers highlighted the importance, value and challenges of involving potential users. Interviews with developers whose projects had involved members of vulnerable populations suggested that informal needs assessment activities served to center the decision aid around users' needs, to better avoid stigma, and to ensure that the topic truly matters to the community. Partnering with community-based organizations may facilitate relationships of trust and may also provide a non-threatening and accessible location for research activities.

conclusionsThere are a small number of key differences in the development processes for patient decision aids in which members of vulnerable populations were or were not specifically involved. Some of these practices may require additional time or resources. To address health inequities, researchers, communities and funders may need to increase awareness of these approaches and plan accordingly.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesPatient ParticipationVulnerable PopulationsHealth Services ResearchHumansDecision aidsMarginalized populationsPatient engagementShared decision makingVulnerable populations

Identifiers

PMID28103862
PMCPMC5244537
OpenAlexW2577836407

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.