Involving members of vulnerable populations in the development of patient decision aids: a mixed methods sequential explanatory study - PubMed (original) (raw)

doi: 10.1186/s12911-016-0399-8.

Marie-Ève Trottier 1 2, Selma Chipenda Dansokho 1, Gratianne Vaisson 1 2, Thierry Provencher 1, Heather Colquhoun 3, Maman Joyce Dogba 4, Sophie Dupéré 5, Angela Fagerlin 6, Anik M C Giguere 1 4 7, Lynne Haslett 8, Aubri S Hoffman 9, Noah M Ivers 10 11, France Légaré 2 4, Jean Légaré 12, Carrie A Levin 13, Matthew Menear 14 15, Jean-Sébastien Renaud 1 4, Dawn Stacey 16, Robert J Volk 17, Holly O Witteman 18 19 20

Affiliations

Involving members of vulnerable populations in the development of patient decision aids: a mixed methods sequential explanatory study

Michèle Dugas et al. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2017.

Abstract

Background: Patient decision aids aim to present evidence relevant to a health decision in understandable ways to support patients through the process of making evidence-informed, values-congruent health decisions. It is recommended that, when developing these tools, teams involve people who may ultimately use them. However, there is little empirical evidence about how best to undertake this involvement, particularly for specific populations of users such as vulnerable populations.

Methods: To describe and compare the development practices of research teams that did and did not specifically involve members of vulnerable populations in the development of patient decision aids, we conducted a secondary analysis of data from a systematic review about the development processes of patient decision aids. Then, to further explain our quantitative results, we conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with 10 teams: 6 that had specifically involved members of vulnerable populations and 4 that had not. Two independent analysts thematically coded transcribed interviews.

Results: Out of a total of 187 decision aid development projects, 30 (16%) specifically involved members of vulnerable populations. The specific involvement of members of vulnerable populations in the development process was associated with conducting informal needs assessment activities (73% vs. 40%, OR 2.96, 95% CI 1.18-7.99, P = .02) and recruiting participants through community-based organizations (40% vs. 11%, OR 3.48, 95% CI 1.23-9.83, P = .02). In interviews, all developers highlighted the importance, value and challenges of involving potential users. Interviews with developers whose projects had involved members of vulnerable populations suggested that informal needs assessment activities served to center the decision aid around users' needs, to better avoid stigma, and to ensure that the topic truly matters to the community. Partnering with community-based organizations may facilitate relationships of trust and may also provide a non-threatening and accessible location for research activities.

Conclusions: There are a small number of key differences in the development processes for patient decision aids in which members of vulnerable populations were or were not specifically involved. Some of these practices may require additional time or resources. To address health inequities, researchers, communities and funders may need to increase awareness of these approaches and plan accordingly.

Keywords: Decision aids; Marginalized populations; Patient engagement; Shared decision making; Vulnerable populations.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Stacey D, Legare F, Col NF, Bennett CL, Barry MJ, Eden KB, Holmes-Rovner M, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Lyddiatt A, Thomson R, Trevena L, Wu JHC. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;1:CD001431. - PubMed
    1. Coulter A, Stilwell D, Kryworuchko J, Mullen PD, Ng CJ, van der Weijden T. A systematic development process for patient decision aids. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13(Suppl 2):S2. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-13-S2-S2. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Elwyn G, O’Connor AM, Bennett C, Newcombe RG, Politi M, Durand M-A, Drake E, Joseph-Williams N, Khangura S, Saarimaki A, Sivell S, Stiel M, Bernstein SJ, Col N, Coulter A, Eden K, Harter M, Rovner MH, Moumjid N, Stacey D, Thomson R, Whelan T, van der Weijden T, Edwards A. Assessing the quality of decision support technologies using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards instrument (IPDASi) PLoS One. 2009;4:e4705. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0004705. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Durand M-A, Carpenter L, Dolan H, Bravo P, Mann M, Bunn F, Elwyn G. Do interventions designed to support shared decision-making reduce health inequalities? A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2014;9:e94670. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0094670. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Deegan PE. A web application to support recovery and shared decision making in psychiatric medication clinics. Psychiatr Rehabil J. 2010;34:23–28. doi: 10.2975/34.1.2010.23.28. - DOI - PubMed

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources