Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37217915›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2023

Digital encounter decision aids linked to clinical practice guidelines: results from user testing SHARE-IT decision aids in primary care.

Pieter Van Bostraeten, Bert Aertgeerts, Geertruida Bekkering, Nicolas Delvaux, Anna Haers, Matisse Vanheeswyck, Alexander Vandekendelaere, Niels Van der Auwera, Charlotte Dijckmans, Elise Ostyn and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Development of web- and mobile-based shared decision-making tools in the neurological intensive care unit.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. 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

17 authors.

Pieter Van BostraetenAcademic Center for General Practice, department of PH&PC, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 7 block h, box 7001, 3000, Leuven, Belgium. pieter.vanbostraeten@kuleuven.be.
Bert AertgeertsAcademic Center for General Practice, department of PH&PC, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 7 block h, box 7001, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Geertruida BekkeringAcademic Center for General Practice, department of PH&PC, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 7 block h, box 7001, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Nicolas DelvauxAcademic Center for General Practice, department of PH&PC, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 7 block h, box 7001, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Anna HaersAcademic Center for General Practice, department of PH&PC, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 7 block h, box 7001, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Matisse VanheeswyckAcademic Center for General Practice, department of PH&PC, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 7 block h, box 7001, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Alexander VandekendelaereAcademic Center for General Practice, department of PH&PC, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 7 block h, box 7001, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Niels Van der AuweraAcademic Center for General Practice, department of PH&PC, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 7 block h, box 7001, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Charlotte DijckmansAcademic Center for General Practice, department of PH&PC, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 7 block h, box 7001, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Elise OstynAcademic Center for General Practice, department of PH&PC, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 7 block h, box 7001, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Willem SoontjensAcademic Center for General Practice, department of PH&PC, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 7 block h, box 7001, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Wout MatthysenAcademic Center for General Practice, department of PH&PC, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 7 block h, box 7001, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Noémie SchenkAcademic Center for General Practice, department of PH&PC, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 7 block h, box 7001, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Lien MertensAcademic Center for General Practice, department of PH&PC, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 7 block h, box 7001, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Jasmien JaekenAcademic Center for General Practice, department of PH&PC, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 7 block h, box 7001, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Thomas AgoritsasDivision General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University Hospitals of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Mieke VermandereAcademic Center for General Practice, department of PH&PC, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 7 block h, box 7001, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEncounter decision aids (EDAs) are tools that can support shared decision making (SDM), up to the clinical encounter. However, adoption of these tools has been limited, as they are hard to produce, to keep up-to-date, and are not available for many decisions. The MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation has created a new generation of decision aids that are generically produced along digitally structured guidelines and evidence summaries, in an electronic authoring and publication platform (MAGICapp). We explored general practitioners' (GPs) and patients' experiences with five selected decision aids linked to BMJ Rapid Recommendations in primary care.

methodsWe applied a qualitative user testing design to evaluate user experiences for both GPs and patients. We translated five EDAs relevant to primary care, and observed the clinical encounters of 11 GPs when they used the EDA with their patients. We conducted a semi-structured interview with each patient after the consultation and a think-aloud interview with each GPs after multiple consultations. We used the Qualitative Analysis Guide (QUAGOL) for data analysis.

resultsDirect observations and user testing analysis of 31 clinical encounters showed an overall positive experience. The EDAs created better involvement in decision making and resulted in meaningful insights for patients and clinicians. The design and its interactive, multilayered structure made the tool enjoyable and well-organized. Difficult terminology, scales and numbers hindered understanding of certain information, which was sometimes perceived as too specialized or even intimidating. GPs thought the EDA was not suitable for every patient. They perceived a learning curve was required and the need for time investment was a concern. The EDAs were considered trustworthy as they were provided by a credible source.

conclusionsThis study showed that EDAs can be useful tools in primary care by supporting actual shared decision making and enhancing patient involvement. The graphical approach and clear representation help patients better understand their options. To overcome barriers such as health literacy and GPs attitudes, effort is still needed to make the EDAs as accessible, intuitive and inclusive as possible through use of plain language, uniform design, rapid access and training.

trial registrationThe study protocol was approved by the The Research Ethics Committee UZ/KU Leuven (Belgium) on 31-10-2019 with reference number MP011977.

Indexed as

EcosystemGeneral PractitionersDecision MakingDecision Support TechniquesHumansPatient ParticipationPractice Guidelines as TopicPrimary Health CareDecision aidsDigitalEvidence-based medicineGeneral practitionerInterviewPatient-centered communicationPatient decision aidsPatient participationPrimary careQualitative researchShared decision makingThink aloudUser testing

Identifiers

PMID37217915
PMCPMC10201505

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.