Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34187484›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2021

Decision aids linked to evidence summaries and clinical practice guidelines: results from user-testing in clinical encounters.

Anja Fog Heen, Per Olav Vandvik, Linn Brandt, Frankie Achille, Gordon Henry Guyatt, Elie A Akl, Shaun Treewek, Thomas Agoritsas

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
9.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Massage Therapy: A Person-Centred Approach to Chronic Pain.International journal of therapeutic massage & bodywork · 2022
    Article
  20. 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

8 authors at 6 institutions in 6 countries.

Anja Fog HeenDepartment of Medicine, Innlandet Hospital Trust, Mailbox 104, 2381, Brumunddal, Norway. anjaheen@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-8873-7028
Per Olav VandvikMAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation, Oslo, Norway.
Linn BrandtDepartment of Medicine, Innlandet Hospital Trust, Mailbox 104, 2381, Brumunddal, Norway.
Frankie AchilleMAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation, Oslo, Norway.
Gordon Henry GuyattMAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation, Oslo, Norway.
Elie A AklDepartment of Internal Medicine, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.
Shaun TreewekHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Thomas AgoritsasMAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation, Oslo, Norway.
Innlandet Hospital Trust · NOAmerican University of Beirut · LBMcMaster University · CAUniversity of Aberdeen · GBUniversity of Geneva · CHUniversity of Oslo · NO

Funding

Chief Scientist Office HSRU1Helse Sør-Øst RHF 15/00779-23Swiss National Science Foundation P3SMP3-155290/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTools for shared decision-making (e.g. decision aids) are intended to support health care professionals and patients engaged in clinical encounters involving shared decision-making. However, decision aids are hard to produce, and onerous to update. Consequently, they often do not reflect best current evidence, and show limited uptake in practice. In response, we initiated the Sharing Evidence to Inform Treatment decisions (SHARE-IT) project. Our goal was to develop and refine a new generation of decision aids that are generically produced along digitally structured guidelines and evidence summaries.

methodsApplying principles of human-centred design and following the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) and GRADE methods for trustworthy evidence summaries we developed a decision aid prototype in collaboration with the Developing and Evaluating Communication strategies to support Informed Decisions and practice based on Evidence project (DECIDE). We iteratively user-tested the prototype in clinical consultations between clinicians and patients. Semi-structured interviews of participating clinicians and patients were conducted. Qualitative content analysis of both user-testing sessions and interviews was performed and results categorized according to a revised Morville's framework of user-experience. We made it possible to produce, publish and use these decision aids in an electronic guideline authoring and publication platform (MAGICapp).

resultsDirect observations and analysis of user-testing of 28 clinical consultations between physicians and patients informed four major iterations that addressed readability, understandability, usability and ways to cope with information overload. Participants reported that the tool supported natural flow of the conversation and induced a positive shift in consultation habits towards shared decision-making. We integrated the functionality of SHARE-IT decision aids in MAGICapp, which has since generated numerous decision aids.

conclusionOur study provides a proof of concept that encounter decision aids can be generically produced from GRADE evidence summaries and clinical guidelines. Online authoring and publication platforms can help scale up production including continuous updating of electronic encounter decision aids, fully integrated with evidence summaries and clinical practice guidelines.

Indexed as

Decision MakingDecision Support TechniquesCommunicationDecision Making, SharedHumansMotivationPractice Guidelines as TopicClinical practice guidelinesDecision aidsShared decision-making

Identifiers

PMID34187484
PMCPMC8240084
OpenAlexW3176868265

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.