ArticleJMIR human factors2026
Interactive, Personalized Patient Decision Aid for COVID-19 Vaccination in Canada: User-Centered Design Approach.
Article in JMIR human factors, 2026. 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
31 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the need for practical digital health tools to support informed decision-making amid rapidly evolving evidence and widespread misinformation. Objective: We iteratively developed and refined VaxDA-C19, a bilingual (English and French) web-based patient decision aid designed to support informed decision-making in Canada about COVID-19 vaccination. VaxDA-C19 integrates interactive and personalized features aimed to enhance vaccine confidence, reduce cognitive overload, and respond to diverse informational needs. Methods: VaxDA-C19 was developed using an iterative, user-centered design approach. Throughout the development process, we involved a citizen panel, health care professionals, user experience designers, and scientific experts to guide refinements. We also conducted usability testing sessions with adults in Canada, using semistructured interviews, comparative testing, and think-aloud protocols with thematic analysis. We ultimately conducted 4 design cycles in total with adults in Canada (users) and expert reviewers (experts). Cycle 1 involved 9 people (9 users), cycle 2 involved 22 people (22 users), cycle 3 involved 9 people (3 users and 6 experts), and cycle 4 involved 9 people (9 experts). Results: In cycle 1, user feedback guided design decisions about how to present quantitative information and technical vaccine descriptions more simply. In cycle 2, while most users (9/11, 82%) favored in-depth explanations of vaccine development, a few raised concerns about content that could be perceived as politically charged. Cycle 3 identified usability improvements, including more explicit navigation controls, simplified medical terminology, and optimized interactive components (avatars and sliders). Expert reviews in cycle 4 refined linguistic consistency, mobile responsiveness, content transparency, and scientific accuracy, emphasizing explicit instructional guidance and bilingual accessibility. Conclusions: Our iterative process produced a personalized, bilingual digital decision aid to support evidence-informed, values-congruent decisions about COVID-19 vaccination. A randomized controlled trial will further evaluate VaxDA-C19's impact on vaccination intentions, knowledge retention, emotional responses, decisional conflict, and decisional regret. If it proves effective, the patient decision aid may also be used as a platform to support other vaccine decisions, namely, influenza, measles, shingles, pertussis, and potentially other emerging infectious diseases.
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.