ArticleBMC women's health2021
User testing a patient information resource about potential complications of vaginally inserted synthetic mesh.
Article in BMC women's health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVaginal mesh implants are medical devices used in a number of operations to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. Although many of these operations have delivered good outcomes, some women have experienced serious complications that have profoundly affected their quality of life. To ensure that evolving patient information is up-to-date, accurate and appropriate, the Transvaginal Mesh Oversight Group 'user-tested' a newly developed Scottish patient resource, the first to focus exclusively on the issue of complications. The aim of this research was to gather feedback on usability, content, language and presentation to inform the development of the resource from a user perspective.
methodsThe experience of using the patient resource was captured through semi-structured interviews that followed a 'think-aloud' protocol. The interviewer observed each participant as they went through the resource, asking questions and making field notes. Participants' comments were then categorised using a validated model of user experience and subsequently analysed thematically.
resultsThirteen people participated in the user testing interviews, including women with lived experience of mesh implants (n = 7), a convenience sample of staff working for Healthcare Improvement Scotland (n = 5) and a patient's carer (n = 1). The majority of participants considered the resource as clear and helpful. Respondents reported that some presentational aspects promoted usability and understandability, including the use of a font that is easy to read, bullet lists, coloured headings and simple language. Barriers included the reliance on some technical language and an explicit anatomical diagram. Participants endorsed the valuable role of health professionals as co-mediators of patient information.
conclusionsThe findings illustrate the value of undertaking in-depth user-testing for patient information resources before their dissemination. The study highlighted how the direct guidance or navigation of a patient information resource by a health professional could increase its salience and accuracy of interpretation by patients, their families and carers. These insights may also be useful to other developers in improving patient information.
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.