Dataset Information

Layperson Views about the Design and Evaluation of Decision Aids: A Public Deliberation.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

We carried out the first public deliberation to elicit lay input regarding guidelines for the design and evaluation of decision aids, focusing on the example of colorectal ("colon") cancer screening.

Methods

A random, demographically stratified sample of 28 laypeople convened for 4 days, during which they were informed about key issues regarding colon cancer, screening tests, risk communication, and decision aids. Participants then deliberated in small and large group sessions about the following: 1) What information should be included in all decision aids for colon screening? 2) What risk information should be in a decision aid and how should risk information be presented? 3) What makes a screening decision a good one (reasonable or legitimate)? 4) What makes a decision aid and the advice it provides trustworthy? With the help of a trained facilitator, the deliberants formulated recommendations, and a vote was held on each to identify support and alternative views.

Results

Twenty-one recommendations ("deliberative conclusions") were strongly supported. Some conclusions matched current recommendations, such as that decision aids should be available for use with and without providers present (conclusions 1-4) and should support informed choice (conclusion 9). Some conclusions differed from current recommendations, at least in emphasis-for example, that decision aids should disclose cost of screening (conclusion 11) and should be kept simple and understandable (conclusion 14). Deliberants recommended that decision aids should disclose the baseline risk of getting colon cancer (conclusions 15, 17).

Limitations

Single location and medical decision.

Conclusions

Guidelines for design of decision aids should consider putting a greater focus on disclosing cost and keeping decision aids simple, and they possibly should recommend disclosing less extensive amounts of quantitative information than currently recommended.

SUBMITTER: Schwartz PH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8191156 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Public deliberation, or deliberative democracy, is a method used to elicit informed perspectives and justifiable solutions to ethically fraught or contentious issues that affect multiple stakeholder groups with conflicting interests. Deliberative events bring together stakeholders (deliberants) who are provided with empirical evidence on the central issue or concern and then asked to discuss the evidence, consider the issue from a societal perspective, and collectively work toward a justifiable resolution. There is increasing interest in this method, which warrants clear guidance for evaluating the quality of its use in research. Most of the existing literature on measuring deliberation quality emphasizes the quality of deliberants' inputs (eg, engagement and evidence of compromise) during deliberative sessions. Fewer researchers have framed quality in terms of facilitator inputs, and these researchers tend to examine inputs that are consistent with generic group processes. The theory, process, and purpose of public deliberation, however, are distinct from those of focus groups or other group-based discussions and warrant a mechanism for measuring quality in terms of facilitator fidelity to the principles and processes of deliberative democracy. In our public deliberation on ethical conflicts in minor consent for biomedical HIV prevention research, we assessed facilitator fidelity to these principles and processes because we believe that such assessments serve as a component of a comprehensive evaluation of overall deliberation quality. We examined verbatim facilitator remarks in the deliberation transcripts and determined whether they aligned with the 6 principles of public deliberation: equal participation, respect for the opinions of others, adoption of a societal perspective, reasoned justification of ideas, expression of diverse opinions, and compromise or movement toward consensus. In this tutorial, we describe the development of a blueprint to guide researchers in assessing facilitator fidelity, share 3 templates that will assist them in the task, and describe the results of our assessment of facilitator fidelity in 1 of the 4 sites in which we conducted deliberations.

Project description:BackgroundProviding patient-centered care requires that patients partner in their personal health-care decisions to the full extent desired. Patient decision aids facilitate processes of shared decision-making between patients and their clinicians by presenting relevant scientific information in balanced, understandable ways, helping clarify patients' goals, and guiding decision-making processes. Although international standards stipulate that patients and clinicians should be involved in decision aid development, little is known about how such involvement currently occurs, let alone best practices. This systematic review consisting of three interlinked subreviews seeks to describe current practices of user involvement in the development of patient decision aids, compare these to practices of user-centered design, and identify promising strategies.Methods/designA research team that includes patient and clinician representatives, decision aid developers, and systematic review method experts will guide this review according to the Cochrane Handbook and PRISMA reporting guidelines. A medical librarian will hand search key references and use a peer-reviewed search strategy to search MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, the ACM library, IEEE Xplore, and Google Scholar. We will identify articles across all languages and years describing the development or evaluation of a patient decision aid, or the application of user-centered design or human-centered design to tools intended for patient use. Two independent reviewers will assess article eligibility and extract data into a matrix using a structured pilot-tested form based on a conceptual framework of user-centered design. We will synthesize evidence to describe how research teams have included users in their development process and compare these practices to user-centered design methods. If data permit, we will develop a measure of the user-centeredness of development processes and identify practices that are likely to be optimal.DiscussionThis systematic review will provide evidence of current practices to inform approaches for involving patients and other stakeholders in the development of patient decision aids. We anticipate that the results will help move towards the establishment of best practices for the development of patient-centered tools and, in turn, help improve the experiences of people who face difficult health decisions.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42014013241.