Dataset Information

Determinants of Laypersons' Trust in Medical Decision Aids: Randomized Controlled Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Symptom checker apps are patient-facing decision support systems aimed at providing advice to laypersons on whether, where, and how to seek health care (disposition advice). Such advice can improve laypersons' self-assessment and ultimately improve medical outcomes. Past research has mainly focused on the accuracy of symptom checker apps' suggestions. To support decision-making, such apps need to provide not only accurate but also trustworthy advice. To date, only few studies have addressed the question of the extent to which laypersons trust symptom checker app advice or the factors that moderate their trust. Studies on general decision support systems have shown that framing automated systems (anthropomorphic or emphasizing expertise), for example, by using icons symbolizing artificial intelligence (AI), affects users' trust.

Objective

This study aims to identify the factors influencing laypersons' trust in the advice provided by symptom checker apps. Primarily, we investigated whether designs using anthropomorphic framing or framing the app as an AI increases users' trust compared with no such framing.

Methods

Through a web-based survey, we recruited 494 US residents with no professional medical training. The participants had to first appraise the urgency of a fictitious patient description (case vignette). Subsequently, a decision aid (mock symptom checker app) provided disposition advice contradicting the participants' appraisal, and they had to subsequently reappraise the vignette. Participants were randomized into 3 groups: 2 experimental groups using visual framing (anthropomorphic, 160/494, 32.4%, vs AI, 161/494, 32.6%) and a neutral group without such framing (173/494, 35%).

Results

Most participants (384/494, 77.7%) followed the decision aid's advice, regardless of its urgency level. Neither anthropomorphic framing (odds ratio 1.120, 95% CI 0.664-1.897) nor framing as AI (odds ratio 0.942, 95% CI 0.565-1.570) increased behavioral or subjective trust (P=.99) compared with the no-frame condition. Even participants who were extremely certain in their own decisions (ie, 100% certain) commonly changed it in favor of the symptom checker's advice (19/34, 56%). Propensity to trust and eHealth literacy were associated with increased subjective trust in the symptom checker (propensity to trust b=0.25; eHealth literacy b=0.2), whereas sociodemographic variables showed no such link with either subjective or behavioral trust.

Conclusions

Contrary to our expectation, neither the anthropomorphic framing nor the emphasis on AI increased trust in symptom checker advice compared with that of a neutral control condition. However, independent of the interface, most participants trusted the mock app's advice, even when they were very certain of their own assessment. Thus, the question arises as to whether laypersons use such symptom checkers as substitutes rather than as aids in their own decision-making. With trust in symptom checkers already high at baseline, the benefit of symptom checkers depends on interface designs that enable users to adequately calibrate their trust levels during usage.

Trial registration

Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien DRKS00028561; https://tinyurl.com/rv4utcfb (retrospectively registered).

SUBMITTER: Kopka M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9115664 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMedical emergencies are complex and stressful, especially for the young and inexperienced. Cognitive aids (CA) have been shown to facilitate management of simulated medical emergencies by experienced teams. In this randomized trial we evaluated guideline adherence and treatment efficacy in simulated medical emergencies managed by residents with and without CA.MethodsPhysicians attending educational courses executed simulated medical emergencies. Teams were randomly assigned to manage emergencies with or without CA. Primary outcome was risk reduction of essential working steps. Secondary outcomes included prior experience in emergency medicine and CA, perceptions of usefulness, clinical relevance, acceptability, and accuracy in CA selection. Participants were grouped as "medical" (internal medicine and neurology) and "perioperative" (anesthesia and surgery) regarding their specialty. The study was designed as a prospective randomized single-blind study that was approved by the ethical committee of the University Duisburg-Essen (19-8966-BO).Trial registrationDRKS, DRKS00024781. Registered 16 March 2021-Retrospectively registered, http://www.drks.de/DRKS00024781 .ResultsEighty teams participated in 240 simulated medical emergencies. Cognitive aid usage led to 9% absolute and 15% relative risk reduction. Per protocol analysis showed 17% absolute and 28% relative risk reduction. Wrong CA were used in 4%. Cognitive aids were judged as helpful by 94% of the participants. Teams performed significantly better when emergency CA were available (p < 0.05 for successful completion of critical work steps). Stress reduction using CA was more likely in "medical" than in "perioperative" subspecialties (3.7 ± 1.2 vs. 2.9 ± 1.2, p < 0.05).ConclusionsIn a high-fidelity simulation study, CA usage was associated with significant reduction of incorrect working steps in medical emergencies management and was characterized by high acceptance. These findings suggest that CA for medical emergencies may have the potential to improve emergency care.

Project description:The conflicting recommendations for prostate cancer (PCa) screening and the mixed messages communicated to the public about screening effectiveness make it critical to assist men in making informed decisions.To assess the effectiveness of 2 decision aids in helping men make informed PCa screening decisions.A racially diverse group of male outpatients aged 45 to 70 years from 3 sites were interviewed by telephone at baseline, 1 month, and 13 months, from 2007 through 2011. We conducted intention-to-treat univariate analyses and multivariable linear and logistic regression analyses, adjusting for baseline outcome measures.Random assignment to print-based decision aid (n?=?628), web-based interactive decision aid (n?=?625), or usual care (UC) (n?=?626).Prostate cancer knowledge, decisional conflict, decisional satisfaction, and whether participants underwent PCa screening.Of 4794 eligible men approached, 1893 were randomized. At each follow-up assessment, univariate and multivariable analyses indicated that both decision aids resulted in significantly improved PCa knowledge and reduced decisional conflict compared with UC (all P <.001). At 1 month, the standardized mean difference (Cohen’s d) in knowledge for the web group vs UC was 0.74, and in the print group vs UC, 0.73. Decisional conflict was significantly lower for web vs UC (d?=?0.33) and print vs UC (d?=?0.36). At 13 months, these differences were smaller but remained significant. At 1 month, high satisfaction was reported by significantly more print (60.4%) than web participants (52.2%; P?=?.009) and significantly more web (P?=?.001) and print (P?=?.03) than UC participants (45.5%). At 13 months, differences in the proportion reporting high satisfaction among print (55.7%) compared with UC (49.8%; P?=?.06) and web participants (50.4%; P?=?.10) were not significant. Screening rates at 13 months did not differ significantly among groups.Both decision aids improved participants’ informed decision making about PCa screening up to 13 months later but did not affect actual screening rates. Dissemination of these decision aids may be a valuable public health tool.clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00196807.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed malignancy in women. Mastectomy and breast-conserving surgery (BCS) have equivalent survival for early stage breast cancer. However, each surgery has different benefits and harms that women may value differently. Women of lower socioeconomic status (SES) diagnosed with early stage breast cancer are more likely to experience poorer doctor-patient communication, lower satisfaction with surgery and decision-making, and higher decision regret compared to women of higher SES. They often play a more passive role in decision-making and are less likely to undergo BCS. Our aim is to understand how best to support women of lower SES in making decisions about early stage breast cancer treatments and to reduce disparities in decision quality across socioeconomic strata. METHODS:We will conduct a three-arm, multi-site randomized controlled superiority trial with stratification by SES and clinician-level randomization. At four large cancer centers in the United States, 1100 patients (half higher SES and half lower SES) will be randomized to: (1) Option Grid, (2) Picture Option Grid, or (3) usual care. Interviews, field-notes, and observations will be used to explore strategies that promote the interventions' sustained use and dissemination. Community-Based Participatory Research will be used throughout. We will include women aged at least 18 years of age with a confirmed diagnosis of early stage breast cancer (I to IIIA) from both higher and lower SES, provided they speak English, Spanish, or Mandarin Chinese. Our primary outcome measure is the 16-item validated Decision Quality Instrument. We will use a regression framework, mediation analyses, and multiple informants analysis. Heterogeneity of treatment effects analyses for SES, age, ethnicity, race, literacy, language, and study site will be performed. DISCUSSION:Currently, women of lower SES are more likely to make treatment decisions based on incomplete or uninformed preferences, potentially leading to poorer decision quality, quality of life, and decision regret. This study hopes to identify solutions that effectively improve patient-centered care across socioeconomic strata and reduce disparities in decision and care quality. TRIAL REGISTRATION:NCT03136367 at ClinicalTrials.gov Protocol version: Manuscript based on study protocol version 2.2, 7 November 2017.

Project description:BackgroundCancer patients often do not make informed decisions regarding clinical trial participation. This study evaluated whether a web-based decision aid (DA) could support trial decisions compared with our cancer center's website.MethodsAdults diagnosed with cancer in the past 6 months who had not previously participated in a cancer clinical trial were eligible. Participants were randomized to view the DA or our cancer center's website (enhanced usual care [UC]). Controlling for whether participants had heard of cancer clinical trials and educational attainment, multivariable linear regression examined group on knowledge, self-efficacy for finding trial information, decisional conflict (values clarity and uncertainty), intent to participate, decision readiness, and trial perceptions.ResultsTwo hundred patients (86%) consented between May 2014 and April 2015. One hundred were randomized to each group. Surveys were completed by 87 in the DA group and 90 in the UC group. DA group participants reported clearer values regarding trial participation than UC group participants reported (least squares [LS] mean = 15.8 vs. 32, p < .0001) and less uncertainty (LS mean = 24.3 vs. 36.4, p = .025). The DA group had higher objective knowledge than the UC group's (LS mean = 69.8 vs. 55.8, p < .0001). There were no differences between groups in intent to participate.ConclusionsImprovements on key decision outcomes including knowledge, self-efficacy, certainty about choice, and values clarity among participants who viewed the DA suggest web-based DAs can support informed decisions about trial participation among cancer patients facing this preference-sensitive choice. Although better informing patients before trial participation could improve retention, more work is needed to examine DA impact on enrollment and retention.Implications for practiceThis paper describes evidence regarding a decision tool to support patients' decisions about trial participation. By improving knowledge, helping patients clarify preferences for participation, and facilitating conversations about trials, decision aids could lead to decisions about participation that better match patients' preferences, promoting patient-centered care and the ethical conduct of clinical research.