ArticleMedical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making2026
Development and Validation of a Patient-Centered Scale to Evaluate Decision Aid Usability and Information Overload.
Article in Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionDecision aids aim to improve the quality of and satisfaction with decision making. Few scales exist that directly evaluate decision aids from the patient's perspective, particularly with respect to information overload.
methodsWe developed a Decision Aid Evaluation Scale with domains assessing acceptability, satisfaction, cognitive load, and helpfulness for decision making. Cognitive interviews and iterative testing were performed. Convergent and discriminant construct validity were assessed by comparing the novel scale with domains from the validated Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS; values clarity, uncertainty, feeling informed subscales). Internal consistency was measured using Cronbach's alpha. The final scale consisted of Likert-type scale items assessing information amount, values clarity, ease of use, cognitive effort required, nervousness, and overall helpfulness. Participants (any sex or gender, aged 40-60 y) completed the scale after viewing a cancer screening decision aid within a hypothetical screening decision scenario.
resultsWe surveyed 1,249 participants; 778 completed the Decision Aid Evaluation Scale. As hypothesized, a larger proportion of participants who reported low cognitive load had higher DCS values clarity subscale scores than those with high cognitive load (
conclusionsWe developed a patient-centered scale that captures users' perceptions of decision aid usability and information overload. The scale demonstrated acceptable construct validity and internal consistency, supporting its use in evaluating decision aids from the patient perspective.
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.