BACKGROUND: When designing and developing patient decision aids, guidelines recommend involving patients and stakeholders. There are myriad ways to do this. We aimed to describe how such involvement occurs by synthesizing reports of patient decision aid design and development within a user-centered design framework and to provide context by synthesizing reports of user-centered design applied to other personal health tools. METHODS: We included articles describing at least one development step of 1) a patient decision aid, 2) user- or human-centered design of another personal health tool, or 3) evaluation of these. We organized data within a user-centered design framework comprising 3 elements in iterative cycles: understanding users, developing/refining prototype, and observing users. RESULTS: We included 607 articles describing 325 patient decision aid projects and 65 other personal health tool projects. Fifty percent of patient decision aid projects reported involving users in at least 1 step for understanding users, 35% in at least 1 step for developing/refining the prototype, and 84% in at least 1 step for observing users' interaction with the prototype. In comparison, other personal health tool projects reported 91%, 49%, and 92%, respectively. A total of 74% of patient decision aid projects and 92% of other personal health tool projects reported iterative processes, both with a median of 3 iterative cycles. Preliminary evaluations such as usability or feasibility testing were reported in 66% of patient decision aid projects and 89% of other personal health tool projects. CONCLUSIONS: By synthesizing design and development practices, we offer evidence-based portraits of user involvement. Those wishing to further align patient decision aid design and development with user-centered design methods could involve users earlier, design and develop iteratively, and report processes in greater detail.
BACKGROUND: When designing and developing patient decision aids, guidelines recommend involving patients and stakeholders. There are myriad ways to do this. We aimed to describe how such involvement occurs by synthesizing reports of patient decision aid design and development within a user-centered design framework and to provide context by synthesizing reports of user-centered design applied to other personal health tools. METHODS: We included articles describing at least one development step of 1) a patient decision aid, 2) user- or human-centered design of another personal health tool, or 3) evaluation of these. We organized data within a user-centered design framework comprising 3 elements in iterative cycles: understanding users, developing/refining prototype, and observing users. RESULTS: We included 607 articles describing 325 patient decision aid projects and 65 other personal health tool projects. Fifty percent of patient decision aid projects reported involving users in at least 1 step for understanding users, 35% in at least 1 step for developing/refining the prototype, and 84% in at least 1 step for observing users' interaction with the prototype. In comparison, other personal health tool projects reported 91%, 49%, and 92%, respectively. A total of 74% of patient decision aid projects and 92% of other personal health tool projects reported iterative processes, both with a median of 3 iterative cycles. Preliminary evaluations such as usability or feasibility testing were reported in 66% of patient decision aid projects and 89% of other personal health tool projects. CONCLUSIONS: By synthesizing design and development practices, we offer evidence-based portraits of user involvement. Those wishing to further align patient decision aid design and development with user-centered design methods could involve users earlier, design and develop iteratively, and report processes in greater detail.
Entities:
Keywords:
decision making; decision support techniques; health services research; humans; patient education; patient participation; patient-centered care
Authors: Ruben Martin-Payo; Sergio Carrasco-Santos; Marcelino Cuesta; Stoyan Stoyan; Xana Gonzalez-Mendez; María Del Mar Fernandez-Alvarez Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2021-11-25 Impact factor: 7.942
Authors: Marilyn M Schapira; Sumedha Chhatre; Jason M Prigge; Jessica Meline; Dana Kaminstein; Keri L Rodriguez; Liana Fraenkel; Jeffrey D Kravetz; Jeff Whittle; Lori A Bastian; Anil Vachani; Scott Akers; Susan Schrand; Jennifer V Ibarra; Onur Asan Journal: JMIR Form Res Date: 2022-04-08
Authors: Herul Hollanda De Sa Neto; Ines Habfast-Robertson; Christina Hempel-Bruder; Marie-Anne Durand; Isabelle Jacot-Sadowski; Yasser Khazaal; Ivan Berlin; Kevin Selby Journal: JMIR Form Res Date: 2022-04-20
Authors: Christine M Gunn; Ariel Maschke; Michael K Paasche-Orlow; Ashley J Housten; Nancy R Kressin; Mara A Schonberg; Tracy A Battaglia Journal: MDM Policy Pract Date: 2021-07-20