Cited by 26Patient-Provider Communication in HealthcareHealth Policy Implementation SciencePalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues

Development of a patient decision aid for the treatment of localised prostate cancer: a participatory design approach

Al‐Itejawi, Hoda HM, van Uden‐Kraan, Cornelia F, Vis, André N, Nieuwenhuijzen, Jakko A, Hofstee, Myrna JA, van Moorselaar, Reindert Jeroen A, Verdonck‐de Leeuw, Irma M·2016·Journal of Clinical Nursing

Abstract

Aims and objectives: To develop a patient decision aid and to prepare an overview of requirements for implementation. Background: We developed a decision aid that fits the preferences of patients and health care professionals to ensure adequate uptake in clinical practice. Design: A participatory design approach was used to acquire insight into preferences regarding the content and design of a decision aid and into barriers and aspects of the decision aid that facilitate implementation in clinical practice. Methods: Three focus group interviews with patients, their partners and health care professionals were conducted. A prototype of the decision aid was developed and presented to patients (n = 14) and health care professionals (n = 13) in semi‐structured interviews. Patients (n = 5) participated in a usability study. Data were analysed by two independent coders. Results: Health care professionals considered medical information on treatments and side effects as the most important aspect to be included in the decision aid. Patients also focused on nonmedical considerations, such as location. Both expected the decision aid to support patients in making a treatment choice. According to health care professionals, the oncology nurse was the most suitable to discuss the decision aid with patients, while some patients preferred to discuss the patient decision aid with the urologist. The main barrier to implementation of the decision aid was said to be the expectation that it is time and money consuming, while the incorporation of the decision aid into clinical guidelines and basing the content on these guidelines, would promote implementation. Conclusions: By using a participatory design approach a patient decision aid was designed to meet patients' and health care professionals' needs. Insight was also gained on requirements for implementation. Relevance to clinical practice: Wide‐scale implementation of decision aids is desirable. An overview is provided of requirements for implementation to successfully incorporate a decision aid into clinical practice.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jocn.13120

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Multiple studies indicated that values or requirements of the to-be-developed eHealth technology can be used to guide usability tests.

    “Third, in multiple studies, authors indicated that values or requirements of the to-be-developed eHealth technology can be used to guide usability tests.”
  • Multiple authors in the included studies indicated that usability tests should be conducted with a broad range of stakeholders, not only end users such as patients, but also caregivers, managers, technology developers, and experts on content and design.

    “First, multiple authors indicated that usability tests should be conducted with a broad range of stakeholders: not only end users such as patients, but also caregivers, managers, technology developers, and experts on content and design”
  • When shaping a multi-method or mixed methods development process, an iterative and flexible development approach is key.

    “the lessons learned illustrated that when shaping a multi-method or mixed methods development process, an iterative and flexible development approach is key [33,54,55,64,113,115].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Al‐Itejawi, H. H., van Uden‐Kraan, C. F., Vis, A. N., Nieuwenhuijzen, J. A., Hofstee, M. J., van Moorselaar, R. J. A., & Verdonck‐de Leeuw, I. M.
Affiliations
  • Department of Urology VU University Medical Center Amsterdam The Netherlands
  • Department of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery VU University Medical Center Amsterdam The Netherlands
  • Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
  • Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
Venue
Journal of Clinical Nursing
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-02-16
Volume
25
Issue
7-8
Pages
1131-1144
ISSN
  • 0962-1067 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2702
OpenAlex
W2274393825
Cited by
25
References
36
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1
FWCI
7.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Nursing (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Prostate Cancer Foundation
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Keywords
patient decision aids, localized prostate cancer, participatory design, implementation barriers, patient preferences, healthcare professional perspectives, urologists, treatment selection, clinical guidelines, usability
MeSH terms
Aged, Attitude of Health Personnel, Decision Support Techniques, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Participation, Prostatic Neoplasms, Focus Groups, Patient Selection, Patient Preference

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review