ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2025
Development of a paediatric asthma shared decision-making tool: intervention design and evaluation.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAsthma is the most common chronic disease in children, yet adherence to treatment remains poor due to barriers in communication and self-management. Shared decision-making (SDM) can improve adherence, but no decision aid currently exists for paediatric asthma. This gap limits children’s engagement in treatment decisions, highlighting the need for a tailored patient decision aid. The aim was to develop a decision aid to support SDM between children with asthma, their parents, and healthcare providers (HCPs), followed by an evaluation of its acceptability and usability.
methodsA user-centred, iterative co-design approach was used, involving children aged 6–18 years with physician-diagnosed asthma, their parents, and healthcare providers (including paediatricians, asthma nurses, and general practitioners). An initial needs assessment identified key challenges in asthma-related decision-making. These insights informed eight structured co-creation sessions focusing on identifying decision points, exploring preferences, and shaping content and format of the decision aid. Usability and acceptability were tested with end-users, and the final version was independently reviewed against the IPDAS checklist by two researchers to assess quality and completeness.
resultsA needs assessment (n = 37) with HCPs, patients, and caregivers identified substantial information gaps, with many patients and parents unaware of treatment options or potential side effects. HCPs emphasised the potential value of a decision aid in improving information delivery and encouraging SDM. In eight co-creation sessions, a multidisciplinary group (n = 18) collaborated to develop and refine two complementary decision aids. Feedback highlighted improved clarity, age-appropriate design, and relevance for real-life consultations. In the final phases, both decision aids were tested for acceptability and usability, showing high user satisfaction with minor revisions made (n = 32). A quality assessment was conducted by two independent reviewers. Both tools met all 12 IPDAS criteria. These results confirm their quality and suitability for implementation in practice.
conclusionThe decision aids were well received by patients, parents and HCPs and met IPDAS criteria. They address critical unmet needs in paediatric asthma care by supporting informed decision-making. These tools have the potential to improve the quality of clinical consultations and promote more patient-centred care in the treatment of childhood asthma. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.