Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28269836›Full record

ArticleAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2016

Usability Testing of a Web-Based Decision Aid for Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Among Multi-Ethnic Women.

Austin M Coe, William Ueng, Jennifer M Vargas, Raven David, Alejandro Vanegas, Katherine Infante, Meghna Trivedi, Haeseung Yi, Jill Dimond, Katherine D Crew and 1 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. User Comprehension and EHR Integration of theAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Development and Usability Testing of a Decision Support App for Women Considering Breast Reconstruction Surgery.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2021
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Personalizing Medical Treatment Decisions: Integrating Meta-analytic Treatment Comparisons with Patient-Specific Risks and Preferences.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2019
    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

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Austin M CoeColumbia University, New York, NY.
William UengColumbia University, New York, NY.
Jennifer M VargasColumbia University, New York, NY.
Raven DavidColumbia University, New York, NY.
Alejandro VanegasColumbia University, New York, NY.
Katherine InfanteColumbia University, New York, NY.
Meghna TrivediColumbia University, New York, NY.
Haeseung YiColumbia University, New York, NY.
Jill DimondSassafras Tech Collective, Ann Arbor, MI.
Katherine D CrewColumbia University, New York, NY.
Rita KukafkaColumbia University, New York, NY.
Columbia University · USFlex (United States) · US

Funding

Increasing breast cancer chemoprevention in the primary care settingR01CA177995 · NCI · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI CREW, KATHERINE D, KUKAFKA, RITA · 2014 to 2018
$3.5M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA177995
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chemoprevention with antiestrogens could decrease the incidence of invasive breast cancer but uptake has been low among high-risk women in the United States. We have designed a web-based patient-facing decision aid, called RealRisks, to inform high-risk women about the risks and benefits of chemoprevention and facilitate shared decision-making with their primary care provider. We conducted two rounds of usability testing to determine how subjects engaged with and understood the information in RealRisks. A total of 7 English-speaking and 4 Spanish-speaking subjects completed testing. Using surveys, think-aloud protocols, and subject recordings, we identified several themes relating to the usability of RealRisks, specifically in the content, ease of use, and navigability of the application. By conducting studies in two languages with a diverse multi-ethnic population, we were able to implement interface changes to make RealRisks accessible to users with varying health literacy and acculturation.

Indexed as

Decision MakingDecision Support TechniquesInternetBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHealth LiteracyHispanic or LatinoHumansPatient SatisfactionRisk AssessmentUnited StatesUser-Computer Interface

Identifiers

PMID28269836
PMCPMC5333260
OpenAlexW2620777689

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.