Dataset Information

Users' experiences with an interactive Evidence to Decision (iEtD) framework: a qualitative analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks bring clarity, structure and transparency to health care decision making. The interactive Evidence to Decision (iEtD) tool, developed in the context of the DECIDE project and published by Epistemonikos, is a stand-alone online solution for producing and using EtD frameworks. Since its development, little is known about how organizations have been using the iEtD tool and what characterizes users' experiences with it. This missing information is necessary for any teams planning future developments of the iEtD tool.

Methods

This study aimed to describe users' experiences with the iEtD and identify main barriers and facilitators related to use. We contacted all users registered in the iEtD via email and invited people who identified themselves as having used the solution to a semi-structured interview. Audio recordings were transcribed, and one researcher conducted a directed content analysis of the interviews guided by a user experience framework. Two researchers checked the content independently for accuracy.

Results

Out of 860 people contacted, 81 people replied to our introductory email (response rate 9.4%). Twenty of these had used the tool in a real scenario and were invited to an interview. We interviewed all eight users that accepted this invitation (from six countries, four continents). 'Guideline development' was the iEtD use scenario they most commonly identified. Most participants reported an overall positive experience, without major difficulties navigating or using the different sections. They reported having used most of the EtD framework criteria. Participants reported tailoring their frameworks, for instance by adding or deleting criteria, translating to another language, or rewording headings. Several people preferred to produce a Word version rather than working online, due to the burden of completing the framework, or lack of experience with the tool. Some reported difficulties working with the exportable formats, as they needed considerable editing.

Conclusion

A very limited number of guideline developers have used the iEtD tool published by Epistemonikos since its development. Although users' general experiences are positive, our work has identified some aspects of the tool that need improvement. Our findings could be also applied to development or improvement of other solutions for producing or using EtD frameworks.

SUBMITTER: Meneses-Echavez JF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8146986 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEvidence-based information is a precondition for informed decision-making and participation in health. There are several recommendations and definitions available on the generation and assessment of so called evidence-based health information for patients and consumers (EBHI). They stress the importance of objectively informing people about benefits and harms and any uncertainties in health-related procedures. There are also studies on the comprehensibility, relevance and user-friendliness of these informational materials. But to date there has been little research on the perceptions and cognitive reactions of users or lay people towards EBHI. The aim of our study is to define the spectrum of consumers' reaction patterns to written EBHI in order to gain a deeper understanding of their comprehension and assumptions, as well as their informational needs and expectations.MethodsThis study is based on an external user evaluation of EBHI produced by the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG), commissioned by the IQWiG. The EBHI were examined within guided group discussions, carried out with lay people. The test readers' first impressions and their appraisal of the informational content, presentation, structure, comprehensibility and effect were gathered. Then a qualitative text analysis of 25 discussion transcripts involving 94 test readers was performed.ResultsBased on the qualitative text analysis a framework for reaction patterns was developed, comprising eight main categories: (i) interest, (ii) satisfaction, (iii) reassurance and trust, (iv) activation, (v) disinterest, (vi) dissatisfaction and disappointment, (vii) anxiety and worry, (viii) doubt.ConclusionsMany lay people are unfamiliar with core characteristics of this special information type. Two particularly critical issues are the description of insufficient evidence and the attendant absence of clear-cut recommendations. Further research is needed to examine strategies to explain the specific character of EBHI so as to minimize unintended or adverse reaction patterns. The presented framework describes the spectrum of users' reaction patterns to EBHI. It may support existing best practice models for editing EBHI.

Project description:BackgroundZika virus (ZIKV) infection during pregnancy has severe consequences on the new-born. The World Health Organization declared the Zika outbreak to be a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) in 2016. Health facilities in the regions most affected by Zika lacked the capacity to respond to the increased demand for contraception. The objectives were to explore healthcare users' perceptions regarding contraception, Zika prevention during pregnancy and post-abortion care (PAC) services in the context of a Zika outbreak in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, and to follow these services over time.MethodsThis study was part of a broader implementation research study. We used qualitative research consistent with grounded theory approach. Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were performed with women and their partners who used contraceptive services or received PAC services. Data were collected in two stages from December 2017 to July 2018. Themes explored included contraception, Zika and PAC services.ResultsParticipants had positive attitude towards the use of contraceptive methods and demanded more information on safety, efficacy and on side effects. Health care services were inconsistent in the provision of information on Zika and contraception services. ZIKV vector transmission was known but fewer participants were aware of risk of sexual transmission of Zika. Barriers to access healthcare services included contraceptive and PAC services included distance to healthcare facilities, disorganized admission process, long waiting times and out-of-pocket expenditure to purchase medicines. Furthermore, poor quality, mistreatment and abuse of women seeking PAC was prevalent. Some positive changes were noted over time, such as improvements in infrastructure including improved privacy and cleanliness, removal of fees, requisite to bring clean water to hospital.ConclusionsOur results highlight the challenges and areas for improvement in policy and practice related to contraceptive services and PAC in the context of ZIKV infection. Public policies to prevent epidemics should focus more on providing proper sanitation; removing barriers to access and use of effective contraception as human rights priority. Zika epidemic has highlighted weaknesses in health systems that obstruct access to and use of sexual and reproductive health services. The study results call for increased efforts to improve access, especially for women of low socio-economic status and intervene at different levels to eradicate discrimination and improve equity in the provision of health care. Qualitative methods can capture the community perspectives and can provide useful information to develop interventions to improve services.

Project description:ObjectivesPatient medicines helpline services (PMHS) are available from some National Health Service (NHS) Trusts in the UK to provide medicines information to hospital patients and carers. To date, studies of PMHS have examined the views of service users via satisfaction surveys. This study used qualitative methods to explore service users' experiences of using a PMHS, including perceived benefits and areas for improvement.DesignQualitative, using semi-structured interviews.SettingThis study was conducted across seven NHS Trusts in England.ParticipantsForty users of PMHS were individually interviewed over the telephone. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using Braun and Clarke's inductive reflexive thematic analysis. Ethical approval was obtained before study commencement.ResultsParticipants predominantly called a PMHS for themselves (82%; carers: 18%). Two main themes were generated. Theme 1: timeliness-PMHS provide support during the uncertain transition of care period from hospital to home, when patients and carers often feel vulnerable because support is less available. PMHS met service users' needs for timely and easily accessible support, and quick resolution of their issues. PMHS could be improved with staffing beyond typical work week hours, and by having staff available to answer calls instead of using an answerphone. Theme 2: PMHS are best-placed to help-PMHS were perceived as best-placed to answer enquiries that arose from hospital care. Service users felt reassured from speaking to pharmacy professionals, and PMHS were perceived as the optimal service in terms of knowledge and expertise regarding medicines-related questions. However, several participants were initially unaware that their PMHS existed.ConclusionsPMHS are perceived to be a valuable means of accessing timely medicines-related support when patients and carers may be feeling particularly vulnerable. However, their availability and promotion could be improved. We recommend that providers of PMHS consider whether this is achievable, in order to better meet the needs of service users.

Project description:ObjectivesTo explore service-user and provider experience of the acceptability and value of the Let's Prevent Diabetes programme, a pragmatic 6-hour behavioural intervention using structured group education, introduced into primary care practice.DesignQualitative interview-based study with thematic analysis.SettingPrimary care and community.ParticipantsPurposeful sample of 32 participants, including 22 people at high risk of diabetes who either attended, defaulted from or declined the intervention; and 10 stakeholder professionals involved in implementation.ResultsParticipants had low prior awareness of their elevated risk and were often surprised to be offered intervention. Attenders were commonly older, white, retired and motivated to promote their health; who found their session helpful, particularly for social interaction, raising dietary awareness, and convenience of community location. However attenders highlighted lack of depth, repetition within and length of session, difficulty meeting culturally diverse needs and no follow-up as negative features. Those who defaulted from, or who declined the intervention were notably apprehensive, uncertain or unconvinced about whether they were at risk of diabetes; sought more specific information about the intervention, and were deterred by its group nature and day-long duration, with competing work or family commitments. Local providers recognised inadequate communication of diabetes risk to patients. They highlighted significant challenges for implementation, including resource constraints, and facilitation at individual general practice or locality level.ConclusionsThis pragmatic diabetes prevention intervention was acceptable in practice, particularly for older, white, retired and health-motivated people. However, pre-intervention information and communication of diabetes risk should be improved to increase engagement and reduce potential fear or uncertainty, with closer integration of services, and more appropriate care pathways, to facilitate uptake and follow-up. Further development of this, or other interventions, is needed to enable wider, and more socially diverse, engagement of people at risk. Balancing a locality and individual practice approach, and how this is resourced are considerations for long-term sustainability.

Project description:BackgroundQuantitative systematic reviews have identified clinical artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled tools with adequate performance for real-world implementation. To our knowledge, no published report or protocol synthesizes the full breadth of stakeholder perspectives. The absence of such a rigorous foundation perpetuates the "AI chasm," which continues to delay patient benefit.ObjectiveThe aim of this research is to synthesize stakeholder perspectives of computerized clinical decision support tools in any health care setting. Synthesized findings will inform future research and the implementation of AI into health care services.MethodsThe search strategy will use MEDLINE (Ovid), Scopus, CINAHL (EBSCO), ACM Digital Library, and Science Citation Index (Web of Science). Following deduplication, title, abstract, and full text screening will be performed by 2 independent reviewers with a third topic expert arbitrating. The quality of included studies will be appraised to support interpretation. Best-fit framework synthesis will be performed, with line-by-line coding completed by 2 independent reviewers. Where appropriate, these findings will be assigned to 1 of 22 a priori themes defined by the Nonadoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread, and Sustainability framework. New domains will be inductively generated for outlying findings. The placement of findings within themes will be reviewed iteratively by a study advisory group including patient and lay representatives.ResultsStudy registration was obtained from PROSPERO (CRD42021256005) in May 2021. Final searches were executed in April, and screening is ongoing at the time of writing. Full text data analysis is due to be completed in October 2021. We anticipate that the study will be submitted for open-access publication in late 2021.ConclusionsThis paper describes the protocol for a qualitative evidence synthesis aiming to define barriers and facilitators to the implementation of computerized clinical decision support tools from all relevant stakeholders. The results of this study are intended to expedite the delivery of patient benefit from AI-enabled clinical tools.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42021256005; https://tinyurl.com/r4x3thvp.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/33145.