Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34090511›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2021

Citizen advisory groups for the creation and improvement of decision aids: experience from two Swiss centers for primary care.

Kevin Selby, Regula Cardinaux, Beatrice Metry, Simone de Rougemont, Janine Chabloz, Verena Meier-Herrmann, Jürg Stoller, Marie-Anne Durand, Reto Auer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. 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

9 authors.

Kevin Selby *Center for primary care and public health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Rue de Bugnon 44, 1010, Lausanne, Switzerland. kevin.selby@unisante.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9096-0720
Regula Cardinaux *Center for primary care and public health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Rue de Bugnon 44, 1010, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Beatrice MetryInstitute of primary health care (BIHAM), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Simone de Rougemont, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Janine Chabloz, Ecublens, Switzerland.
Verena Meier-Herrmann, Mörigen, Switzerland.
Jürg Stoller, Münsingen, Switzerland.
Marie-Anne DurandCenter for primary care and public health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Rue de Bugnon 44, 1010, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Reto AuerCenter for primary care and public health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Rue de Bugnon 44, 1010, Lausanne, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGuidelines for patient decision aids (DA) recommend target population involvement throughout the development process, but developers may struggle because of limited resources. We sought to develop a feasible means of getting repeated feedback from users.

methodsBetween 2017 and 2020, two Swiss centers for primary care (Lausanne and Bern) created citizen advisory groups to contribute to multiple improvement cycles for colorectal, prostate and lung cancer screening DAs. Following Community Based Participatory Research principles, we collaborated with local organizations to recruit citizens aged 50 to 75 without previous cancer diagnoses. We remunerated incidental costs and participant time. One center supplemented in-person meetings by mailed paper questionnaires, while the other supplemented meetings using small-group workshops and analyses of meeting transcripts.

resultsIn Lausanne, we received input from 49 participants for three DAs between 2017 and 2020. For each topic, participants gave feedback on the initial draft and 2 subsequent versions during in-person meetings with ~ 8 participants and one round of mailed questionnaires. In Bern, 10 participants were recruited among standardized patients from the university, all of whom attended in-person meetings every three months between 2017 and 2020. At both sites, numerous changes were made to the content, appearance, language, and tone of DAs and outreach materials. Participants reported high levels of satisfaction with the participative process.

conclusionsCitizen advisory groups are a feasible means of repeatedly incorporating end-user feedback during the creation of multiple DAs. Methodological differences between the two centers underline the need for a flexible model adapted to local needs.

Indexed as

Citizen involvementDecision aidsParticipatory research

Identifiers

PMID34090511
PMCPMC8179076

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.