Dataset Information

Experimental materials comparing individual performance implications of two decision aids: Taxonomy and tags.

ABSTRACT: Design techniques have been classified to support the selection in design processes. Two decision aids have been created. We designed an experiment to compare both decision aids (taxonomy and tags) and evaluate the influence of individuals' decision style when using a decision aid. The experiment materials included the experimental process, a training, an experimental task, and the survey questionnaire. In this method article, we describe the details of the experiment settings and use the collected data to validate the experiment. Advantages of this method include the following:•The procedure of the experiment ensured an easy-to-understand training part without any bias toward performing the experimental task and answering the survey questionnaire at the end.•The experimental process can be applied to experiments for evaluating task performance by using user interfaces with a training part before the experimental task.•The experimental task scenario and the design techniques included in the experiment can be applied in experiments with design-relevant task scenarios.

SUBMITTER: Liu X

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7701260 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Experimental materials comparing individual performance implications of two decision aids: Taxonomy and tags.

Liu Xuanhui X Werder Karl K Maedche Alexander A

MethodsX 20201117

Design techniques have been classified to support the selection in design processes. Two decision aids have been created. We designed an experiment to compare both decision aids (taxonomy and tags) and evaluate the influence of individuals' decision style when using a decision aid. The experiment materials included the experimental process, a training, an experimental task, and the survey questionnaire. In this method article, we describe the details of the experiment settings and use the collec ...[more]

PMID: 33294395

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEffective use of a patient decision aid (PtDA) can be affected by the user's health literacy and the PtDA's characteristics. Systematic reviews of the relevant literature can guide PtDA developers to attend to the health literacy needs of patients. The reviews reported here aimed to assess:MethodsWe reviewed literature for evidence relevant to these two aims. When high-quality systematic reviews existed, we summarized their evidence. When reviews were unavailable, we conducted our own systematic reviews.ResultsAim 1: In an existing systematic review of PtDA trials, lower health literacy was associated with lower patient health knowledge (14 of 16 eligible studies). Fourteen studies reported practical design strategies to improve knowledge for lower health literacy patients. In our own systematic review, no studies reported on values clarity per se, but in 2 lower health literacy was related to higher decisional uncertainty and regret. Lower health literacy was associated with less desire for involvement in 3 studies, less question-asking in 2, and less patient-centered communication in 4 studies; its effects on other measures of patient involvement were mixed. Only one study assessed the effects of a health literacy intervention on outcomes; it showed that using video to improve the salience of health states reduced decisional uncertainty. Aim 2: In our review of 97 trials, only 3 PtDAs overtly addressed the needs of lower health literacy users. In 90% of trials, user health literacy and readability of the PtDA were not reported. However, increases in knowledge and informed choice were reported in those studies in which health literacy needs were addressed.ConclusionLower health literacy affects key decision-making outcomes, but few existing PtDAs have addressed the needs of lower health literacy users. The specific effects of PtDAs designed to mitigate the influence of low health literacy are unknown. More attention to the needs of patients with lower health literacy is indicated, to ensure that PtDAs are appropriate for lower as well as higher health literacy patients.

Project description:BackgroundEncounter decision aids (EDAs) are tools that can support shared decision making (SDM), up to the clinical encounter. However, adoption of these tools has been limited, as they are hard to produce, to keep up-to-date, and are not available for many decisions. The MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation has created a new generation of decision aids that are generically produced along digitally structured guidelines and evidence summaries, in an electronic authoring and publication platform (MAGICapp). We explored general practitioners' (GPs) and patients' experiences with five selected decision aids linked to BMJ Rapid Recommendations in primary care.MethodsWe applied a qualitative user testing design to evaluate user experiences for both GPs and patients. We translated five EDAs relevant to primary care, and observed the clinical encounters of 11 GPs when they used the EDA with their patients. We conducted a semi-structured interview with each patient after the consultation and a think-aloud interview with each GPs after multiple consultations. We used the Qualitative Analysis Guide (QUAGOL) for data analysis.ResultsDirect observations and user testing analysis of 31 clinical encounters showed an overall positive experience. The EDAs created better involvement in decision making and resulted in meaningful insights for patients and clinicians. The design and its interactive, multilayered structure made the tool enjoyable and well-organized. Difficult terminology, scales and numbers hindered understanding of certain information, which was sometimes perceived as too specialized or even intimidating. GPs thought the EDA was not suitable for every patient. They perceived a learning curve was required and the need for time investment was a concern. The EDAs were considered trustworthy as they were provided by a credible source.ConclusionsThis study showed that EDAs can be useful tools in primary care by supporting actual shared decision making and enhancing patient involvement. The graphical approach and clear representation help patients better understand their options. To overcome barriers such as health literacy and GPs attitudes, effort is still needed to make the EDAs as accessible, intuitive and inclusive as possible through use of plain language, uniform design, rapid access and training.Trial registrationThe study protocol was approved by the The Research Ethics Committee UZ/KU Leuven (Belgium) on 31-10-2019 with reference number MP011977.

Project description:BackgroundShared decision making (SDM) is important in achieving patient-centered care. SDM tools such as decision aids are intended to inform the patient. When used to assist in decision making between treatments, decision aids have been shown to reduce decisional conflict, increase ease of decision making, and increase modification of previous decisions.ObjectiveThe purpose of this systematic review is to assess the impact of computerized decision aids on patient-centered outcomes related to SDM for seriously ill patients.MethodsPubMed and Scopus databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the impact of computerized decision aids on patient-centered outcomes and SDM in serious illness. Six RCTs were identified and data were extracted on study population, design, and results. Risk of bias was assessed by a modified Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Quality Assessment of Randomized Controlled Trials.ResultsSix RCTs tested decision tools in varying serious illnesses. Three studies compared different computerized decision aids against each other and a control. All but one study demonstrated improvement in at least one patient-centered outcome. Computerized decision tools may reduce unnecessary treatment in patients with low disease severity in comparison with informational pamphlets. Additionally, electronic health record (EHR) portals may provide the opportunity to manage care from the home for individuals affected by illness. The quality of decision aids is of great importance. Furthermore, satisfaction with the use of tools is associated with increased patient satisfaction and reduced decisional conflict. Finally, patients may benefit from computerized decision tools without the need for increased physician involvement.ConclusionsMost computerized decision aids improved at least one patient-centered outcome. All RCTs identified were at a High Risk of Bias or Unclear Risk of Bias. Effort should be made to improve the quality of RCTs testing SDM aids in serious illness.

Dataset Information

Experimental materials comparing individual performance implications of two decision aids: Taxonomy and tags.

Publications

Experimental materials comparing individual performance implications of two decision aids: Taxonomy and tags.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets