ArticleMedical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making2021
Layperson Views about the Design and Evaluation of Decision Aids: A Public Deliberation.
Article in Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05512260 (Towards High, Equal and Informed Participation in Swedish Cancer Screening - the BESTa Project.), which is not on this map. Cited by 11 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.
Towards High, Equal and Informed Participation in Swedish Cancer Screening - the BESTa Project.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Different information needs-The major reasons for calling the helpline when invited to colorectal cancer screening.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022Trial
- Making the BEST Decision-the BESTa Project: Description of the Design and Alpha Phases as Part of the Development of a Digital Decision Aid for Cancer Screening in Sweden.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026Article
- Shared Decision Making in Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Scoping Review.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM · 2025Article
- A 4-Site Public Deliberation Project on the Acceptability of Youth Self-Consent in Biomedical HIV Prevention Trials: Assessment of Facilitator Fidelity to Key Principles.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Research data use in a digital society: a deliberative public engagement.International journal of population data science · 2024Article
- Thyroid Cancer Risk Communication in Patients with Thyroid Nodules.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2023Article
- Mixed-Method Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Shared Decision-Making Tools for Cancer Screening.Cancers · 2023Review
- Adding epitope compatibility to deceased donor kidney allocation criteria: recommendations from a pan-Canadian online public deliberation.BMC nephrology · 2023Article
- Article
- Supporting Health and Medical Decision Making: Findings and Insights from Fuzzy-Trace Theory.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2022Article
- Cocreation with Dutch patients of decision-relevant information to support shared decision-making about adjuvant treatment in breast cancer care.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe carried out the first public deliberation to elicit lay input regarding guidelines for the design and evaluation of decision aids, focusing on the example of colorectal ("colon") cancer screening.
methodsA random, demographically stratified sample of 28 laypeople convened for 4 days, during which they were informed about key issues regarding colon cancer, screening tests, risk communication, and decision aids. Participants then deliberated in small and large group sessions about the following: 1) What information should be included in all decision aids for colon screening? 2) What risk information should be in a decision aid and how should risk information be presented? 3) What makes a screening decision a good one (reasonable or legitimate)? 4) What makes a decision aid and the advice it provides trustworthy? With the help of a trained facilitator, the deliberants formulated recommendations, and a vote was held on each to identify support and alternative views.
resultsTwenty-one recommendations ("deliberative conclusions") were strongly supported. Some conclusions matched current recommendations, such as that decision aids should be available for use with and without providers present (conclusions 1-4) and should support informed choice (conclusion 9). Some conclusions differed from current recommendations, at least in emphasis-for example, that decision aids should disclose cost of screening (conclusion 11) and should be kept simple and understandable (conclusion 14). Deliberants recommended that decision aids should disclose the baseline risk of getting colon cancer (conclusions 15, 17). LIMITATIONS: Single location and medical decision.
conclusionsGuidelines for design of decision aids should consider putting a greater focus on disclosing cost and keeping decision aids simple, and they possibly should recommend disclosing less extensive amounts of quantitative information than currently recommended.
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.