Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40365685›Full record

ArticleMedical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making2025

Exploring Values Clarification and Health-Literate Design in Patient Decision Aids: A Qualitative Interview Study.

Julie Ayre, Hazel Jenkins, Richie Kumarage, Kirsten J McCaffery, Christopher G Maher, Mark J Hancock

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

6 authors.

Julie AyreSydney Health Literacy Lab, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5279-5189
Hazel JenkinsMacquarie University Spinal Pain Research Centre, Department of Chiropractic, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0535-687X
Richie KumarageSydney Health Literacy Lab, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Kirsten J McCafferySydney Health Literacy Lab, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2696-5006
Christopher G MaherInstitute for Musculoskeletal Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney and Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1628-7857
Mark J HancockMacquarie University Spinal Pain Research Centre, Department of Health Professions, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9277-5377

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BackgroundThis study explores patient and clinician perceptions of a patient decision aid, focusing on 2 features that are often absent: a health-literate approach (e.g., using plain language, encouraging question asking) and a tool that explicitly shows how treatment options align with patient values. The aim was to gather qualitative feedback from patients and clinicians to better understand how such features might be useful in guiding future decision aid development.MethodsWe present a secondary analysis of data collected during the development of a decision aid for patients considering surgery for sciatica (20 patients with sciatica or low-back pain; 20 clinicians). Patient and clinician feedback on the design was collected via semi-structured interviews with a think-aloud protocol. Transcripts were analyzed using framework analysis.ResultsTheme 1 explored designs that reinforced key messages about personal autonomy, including an interactive values-clarification tool. Theme 2 explored how participants valued encouragement and scaffolding to ask questions. Theme 3 described how patients preferred information they felt was complete, balanced, and understandable.LimitationsFurther experimental and observational research is needed to quantitatively evaluate these decision aid features including evaluation among patients with and without low health literacy.ConclusionsA health-literate approach to decision aid design and embedding an interactive values-clarification tool may be useful strategies for increasing patient capacity to engage in key aspects of shared decision making. These features may support patients in developing an understanding of personal autonomy in the choice at hand and confidence to ask questions.ImplicationsFindings presented here were specific to the clinical context but provide generalizable practical insights for decision aid developers. This study provides insight into potential future areas of research for decision aid design.HighlightsThis qualitative study explored clinician and patient perceptions of health literacy features and an interactive values-clarification task within a decision aid for patients considering surgery for sciatica.The first theme described how patients and clinicians appreciated sections of the decision aid that reinforced the importance of personal choice. Patients and clinicians thought the interactive values-clarification task would help patients reflect on their values and support shared decision-making discussions.The second theme described how patients and clinicians appreciated strategies to encourage patients to ask questions of the surgeon.The third theme described patients' preference for information that they felt was complete, balanced, and understandable.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesHealth LiteracyPatient ParticipationAdultAgedDecision MakingFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedQualitative Researchhealth literacypatient decision aidshared decision-makingvalues clarification

Identifiers

PMID40365685
PMCPMC12166136

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.