ArticleJournal of patient experience2019
Comparative Usability Study of a Newly Created Patient-Centered Tool and Medicare.gov Plan Finder to Help Medicare Beneficiaries Choose Prescription Drug Plans.
Article in Journal of patient experience, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of a decision aid to help dually enrolled veterans make informed choices on medication sourcing.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2026Article
- Addressing complexity: The development and pilot testing of a user-friendly Medicare Part D patient decision aid tool.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2025Article
- Are Virtual Assistants Trustworthy for Medicare Information: An Examination of Accuracy and Reliability.The Gerontologist · 2024Article
- Medicare Decision-making, Understanding, and Satisfaction Among Cancer Survivors.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2022Article
- Online Consent Enables a Randomized, Controlled Trial Testing a Patient-Centered Online Decision-Aid for Medicare Beneficiaries to Meet Recruitment Goal in Short Time Frame.Journal of patient experience · 2020Article
- Cost-Savings and Patient Experience with a Pharmacy-Led Medicare Part D Consultation Service.Innovations in pharmacy · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn response to reported difficulties in selecting a Medicare Part D prescription drug plan, we designed a patient-centered online Part D plan selection tool (CHOICE1.0) to simplify the selection process and to provide personalized, expert recommendations.
methodsThis ethnographic comparative usability study observed 44 patients using the first version of the tool during Medicare 2016 Open Enrollment. Participants were observed as they chose their drug plan using Medicare.gov and 1 of 3 versions of CHOICE1.0 that varied in amount of expert guidance. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze exit survey data. The observations were video-recorded, and field notes were analyzed thematically.
resultsParticipants were significantly more satisfied with CHOICE1.0 for choosing a plan, understanding information, and ease of use compared to Medicare.gov. Those using expert versions of CHOICE1.0 were more likely to indicate their intention to switch plans than those using Medicare.gov, though they wanted to know the source and content.
conclusionThe more patient-centered prescription drug choice tool improved user experience and enabled users to choose plans more consistent with expert recommendations.
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.