OBJECTIVE: Significant advances have been made in the development of decision support interventions, also called decision aids, for patients facing difficult or uncertain decisions. However, challenges related to the definition, the theoretical underpinnings, the relative contribution of different components and how to migrate these tools to the Internet, remain unresolved. We propose a systematic process map for others to consider as they develop web-based, perhaps multimedia, decision support interventions and to examine the future challenges faced by developers. METHODS: Based on our experiences of developing and evaluating web-based decision support interventions, we outline a process map to illustrate the general principles of content specification followed by creative design and tailoring to the target audience. RESULTS: Content specification is fundamental and it should go beyond the traditional emphasis on scientific evidence in order to ensure patients' perspectives on the proposed options. The creative design phase aims to develop a medium to achieve three fundamental tasks: present information; achieve accurate affective forecasting; provide a basis for preference construction. This phase should be an open to experimentation and, where empirical work may be difficult or not yet available, guided by consultation with users, using an iterative method of trial and adaptation. CONCLUSION: There is little empirical research on how best to achieve these tasks. The guiding principle needs to be one of customising the delivery, based on close consultation with the target users and an iterative development process until the intervention is deemed accessible and useful. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The process map provides a basis for further developments and outlines areas where remaining challenges need further investigation.
OBJECTIVE: Significant advances have been made in the development of decision support interventions, also called decision aids, for patients facing difficult or uncertain decisions. However, challenges related to the definition, the theoretical underpinnings, the relative contribution of different components and how to migrate these tools to the Internet, remain unresolved. We propose a systematic process map for others to consider as they develop web-based, perhaps multimedia, decision support interventions and to examine the future challenges faced by developers. METHODS: Based on our experiences of developing and evaluating web-based decision support interventions, we outline a process map to illustrate the general principles of content specification followed by creative design and tailoring to the target audience. RESULTS: Content specification is fundamental and it should go beyond the traditional emphasis on scientific evidence in order to ensure patients' perspectives on the proposed options. The creative design phase aims to develop a medium to achieve three fundamental tasks: present information; achieve accurate affective forecasting; provide a basis for preference construction. This phase should be an open to experimentation and, where empirical work may be difficult or not yet available, guided by consultation with users, using an iterative method of trial and adaptation. CONCLUSION: There is little empirical research on how best to achieve these tasks. The guiding principle needs to be one of customising the delivery, based on close consultation with the target users and an iterative development process until the intervention is deemed accessible and useful. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The process map provides a basis for further developments and outlines areas where remaining challenges need further investigation.
Authors: Mary F Brunette; Joelle C Ferron; Timothy Devitt; Pamela Geiger; Wendy M Martin; Sarah Pratt; Meghan Santos; Gregory J McHugo Journal: Health Educ Res Date: 2011-10-10
Authors: Dharushana Muthulingam; Joshua Bia; Lynn M Madden; Scott O Farnum; Declan T Barry; Frederick L Altice Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2019-01-26
Authors: Linda Fleisher; Kuang Yi Wen; Suzanne M Miller; Michael Diefenbach; Annette L Stanton; Mary Ropka; Marion Morra; Peter C Raich Journal: Internet Interv Date: 2015-11-01
Authors: Mark H Eckman; Ruth E Wise; Katherine Naylor; Lora Arduser; Gregory Y H Lip; Brett Kissela; Matthew Flaherty; Dawn Kleindorfer; Faisal Khan; Daniel P Schauer; John Kues; Alexandru Costea Journal: Curr Med Res Opin Date: 2015-03-13 Impact factor: 2.580
Authors: Andrea C Enzinger; Jennifer K Wind; Elizabeth Frank; Nadine J McCleary; Laura Porter; Heather Cushing; Caroline Abbott; Christine Cronin; Peter C Enzinger; Neal J Meropol; Deborah Schrag Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2017-03-22
Authors: John D Shepherd; Karla M Badger-Brown; Matthew S Legassic; Saagar Walia; Dalton L Wolfe Journal: J Spinal Cord Med Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 1.985
Authors: Linda Fleisher; Dominique G Ruggieri; Suzanne M Miller; Sharon Manne; Terrance Albrecht; Joanne Buzaglo; Michael A Collins; Michael Katz; Tyler G Kinzy; Tasnuva Liu; Cheri Manning; Ellen Specker Charap; Jennifer Millard; Dawn M Miller; David Poole; Stephanie Raivitch; Nancy Roach; Eric A Ross; Neal J Meropol Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2014-04-21