ArticlePEC innovation2024
Development and pilot testing of the Population And ContExt adaption of decision aids (PACE) framework.
Article in PEC innovation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Process for Rapid Co-development of a Decision Aid Prototype for Population-wide Cancer Screening.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2025Article
- Factors Influencing the Adoption of a Patient Decision Aid Development Platform: A Qualitative Study.MDM policy & practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to develop and pilot test a new framework for the adaptation of patient decision aids (PtDAs) using a specific case example of contraceptive method PtDAs for Chinese-speaking migrant women. Methods: We developed a novel approach for adaptation - the PACE (Population And ContExt adaption of decision aids) framework - that incorporated both existing models and frameworks and innovative elements. It involves six stages: selection and appraisal; review by content experts; content validity and usability pre-testing; translation; decisional needs assessment; and perceived acceptability, usability and feasibility testing. We then followed the framework to pilot and adapt a suite of PtDAs on contraceptive methods for Chinese-speaking migrant women in Australia. Twenty healthcare providers and 22 Chinese migrant women participated during the stages five and six. Results: The pilot resulted in adapted PtDAs that were acceptable to end users. For future research, we proposed further recommendations and considerations based on lessons learnt, which include flexibility in applying the framework and considering an additional real-world evaluation step. Conclusion: Adaptation of PtDAs required a multi-stage and multidisciplinary team-based and pragmatic approach as exemplified in the application of the PACE framework. Innovation: The PACE framework developed and piloted in this study fills a crucial gap in knowledge about how to adapt PtDAs for new populations and contexts and provides an innovative and systemic approach to guide the adaptation process.
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.