ArticleBMJ open2019
User-testing an interactive option grid decision aid for prostate cancer screening: lessons to improve usability.
Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects by educational attainment of a mammography screening patient decision aid for women aged 75 years and older.Cancer · 2021Trial
- Prioritizing Equity in Design and Implementation of Consumer-Facing Digital Resources to Support Engagement and Shared Decision-Making.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Continuous adaptation of conversation aids for uterine fibroids treatment options in a four-year multi-center implementation project.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Article
- Increasing access to fertility preservation for women with breast cancer: protocol for a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial in France.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Influencing factors of lung cancer patients' participation in shared decision-making: a cross-sectional study.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2022Article
- User testing of a Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network public guideline for the parents of children with autism.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- 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 · 2021Article
- Processes for evidence summarization for patient decision aids: A Delphi consensus study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021Article
- User testing a patient information resource about potential complications of vaginally inserted synthetic mesh.BMC women's health · 2021Article
- A Scoping Review on How to Make Hospitals health Literate Healthcare Organizations.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo user-test a web-based, interactive Option Grid decision aid 'prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test: yes or no?' to determine its usability, acceptability and feasibility with men of high and low health literacy.
designA semi-structured interview study.
settingInterviews were conducted at a senior centre, academic hospital or college library in New Hampshire and Vermont.
participantsIndividuals over 45 years of age with no history of prostate cancer who voluntarily contacted study authors after viewing local invitations were eligible for inclusion. Twenty interviews were conducted: 10 participants had not completed a college degree, of which eight had low health literacy, and 10 participants had high health literacy.
interventionAn interactive, web-based Option Grid patient decision aid for considering whether or not to have a PSA test.
resultsUsers with lower health literacy levels were able to understand the content in the tool but were not able to navigate the Option Grid independent of assistance. The tool was used independently by men with high health literacy. In terms of acceptability, the flow of questions and answers embedded in the tool did not seem intuitive to some users who preferred seeing more risk information related to age and family history. Users envisioned that the tool could be feasibly implemented in clinical workflows.
conclusionMen in our sample with limited health literacy had difficulty navigating the Option Grid, thus suggesting that the tool was not appropriately designed to be usable by all audiences. The information provided in the tool is acceptable, but users preferred to view personalised risk information. Some participants could envision using this tool prior to an encounter in order to facilitate a better dialogue with their clinician. ETHICS APPROVAL: The study received ethical approval from the Dartmouth College Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects (STUDY00030116).
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.