BackgroundProviding patient-centered care requires that patients partner in their personal health-care decisions to the full extent desired. Patient decision aids facilitate processes of shared decision-making between patients and their clinicians by presenting relevant scientific information in balanced, understandable ways, helping clarify patients’ goals, and guiding decision-making processes. Although international standards stipulate that patients and clinicians should be involved in decision aid development, little is known about how such involvement currently occurs, let alone best practices. This systematic review consisting of three interlinked subreviews seeks to describe current practices of user involvement in the development of patient decision aids, compare these to practices of user-centered design, and identify promising strategies.Methods/designA research team that includes patient and clinician representatives, decision aid developers, and systematic review method experts will guide this review according to the Cochrane Handbook and PRISMA reporting guidelines. A medical librarian will hand search key references and use a peer-reviewed search strategy to search MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, the ACM library, IEEE Xplore, and Google Scholar. We will identify articles across all languages and years describing the development or evaluation of a patient decision aid, or the application of user-centered design or human-centered design to tools intended for patient use. Two independent reviewers will assess article eligibility and extract data into a matrix using a structured pilot-tested form based on a conceptual framework of user-centered design. We will synthesize evidence to describe how research teams have included users in their development process and compare these practices to user-centered design methods. If data permit, we will develop a measure of the user-centeredness of development processes and identify practices that are likely to be optimal.DiscussionThis systematic review will provide evidence of current practices to inform approaches for involving patients and other stakeholders in the development of patient decision aids. We anticipate that the results will help move towards the establishment of best practices for the development of patient-centered tools and, in turn, help improve the experiences of people who face difficult health decisions.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42014013241Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/2046-4053-4-11) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Decades of effectiveness research has established the benefits of using patient decision aids (PtDAs), yet broad clinical implementation has not yet occurred. Evidence to date is mainly derived from highly controlled settings; if clinicians and health care organizations are expected to embed PtDAs as a means to support person-centered care, we need to better understand what this might look like outside of a research setting. Aim This review was conducted in response to the IPDAS Collaboration’s evidence update process, which informs their published standards for PtDA quality and effectiveness. The aim was to develop context-specific program theories that explain why and how PtDAs are successfully implemented in routine healthcare settings. Methods Rapid realist review methodology was used to identify articles that could contribute to theory development. We engaged key experts and stakeholders to identify key sources; this was supplemented by electronic database (Medline and CINAHL), gray literature, and forward/backward search strategies. Initial theories were refined to develop realist context-mechanism-outcome configurations, and these were mapped to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Results We developed 8 refined theories, using data from 23 implementation studies (29 articles), to describe the mechanisms by which PtDAs become successfully implemented into routine clinical settings. Recommended implementation strategies derived from the program theory include 1) co-production of PtDA content and processes (or local adaptation), 2) training the entire team, 3) preparing and prompting patients to engage, 4) senior-level buy-in, and 5) measuring to improve. Conclusions We recommend key strategies that organizations and individuals intending to embed PtDAs routinely can use as a practical guide. Further work is needed to understand the importance of context in the success of different implementation studies.

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.

BackgroundDecision boxes (Dboxes) provide clinicians with research evidence about management options for medical questions that have no single best answer. Dboxes fulfil a need for rapid clinical training tools to prepare clinicians for clinician-patient communication and shared decision-making. We studied the barriers and facilitators to using the Dbox information in clinical practice.MethodsWe used a mixed methods study with sequential explanatory design. We recruited family physicians, residents, and nurses from six primary health-care clinics. Participants received eight Dboxes covering various questions by email (one per week). For each Dbox, they completed a web questionnaire to rate clinical relevance and cognitive impact and to assess the determinants of their intention to use what they learned from the Dbox to explain to their patients the advantages and disadvantages of the options, based on the theory of planned behaviour (TPB). Following the 8-week delivery period, we conducted focus groups with clinicians and interviews with clinic administrators to explore contextual factors influencing the use of the Dbox information.ResultsOne hundred clinicians completed the web surveys. In 54% of the 496 questionnaires completed, they reported that their practice would be improved after having read the Dboxes, and in 40%, they stated that they would use this information for their patients. Of those who would use the information for their patients, 89% expected it would benefit their patients, especially in that it would allow the patient to make a decision more in keeping with his/her personal circumstances, values, and preferences. They intended to use the Dboxes in practice (mean 5.6 ± 1.2, scale 1–7, with 7 being “high”), and their intention was significantly related to social norm, perceived behavioural control, and attitude according to the TPB (P < 0.0001). In focus groups, clinicians mentioned that co-interventions such as patient decision aids and training in shared decision-making would facilitate the use of the Dbox information. Some participants would have liked a clear “bottom line” statement for each Dbox and access to printed Dboxes in consultation rooms.ConclusionsDboxes are valued by clinicians. Tailoring of Dboxes to their needs would facilitate their implementation in practice.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-014-0144-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundThis project engages patients and physicians in the development of Decision Boxes, short clinical topic summaries covering medical questions that have no single best answer. Decision Boxes aim to prepare the clinician to communicate the risks and benefits of the available options to the patient so they can make an informed decision together.MethodsSeven researchers (including four practicing family physicians) selected 10 clinical topics relevant to primary care practice through a Delphi survey. We then developed two one-page prototypes on two of these topics: prostate cancer screening with the prostate-specific antigen test, and prenatal screening for trisomy 21 with the serum integrated test. We presented the prototypes to purposeful samples of family physicians distributed in two focus groups, and patients distributed in four focus groups. We used the User Experience Honeycomb to explore barriers and facilitators to the communication design used in Decision Boxes. All discussions were transcribed, and three researchers proceeded to thematic content analysis of the transcriptions. The coding scheme was first developed from the Honeycomb’s seven themes (valuable, usable, credible, useful, desirable, accessible, and findable), and included new themes suggested by the data. Prototypes were modified in light of our findings.ResultsThree rounds were necessary for a majority of researchers to select 10 clinical topics. Fifteen physicians and 33 patients participated in the focus groups. Following analyses, three sections were added to the Decision Boxes: introduction, patient counseling, and references. The information was spread to two pages to try to make the Decision Boxes less busy and improve users’ first impression. To try to improve credibility, we gave more visibility to the research institutions involved in development. A statement on the boxes’ purpose and a flow chart representing the shared decision-making process were added with the intent of clarifying the tool’s purpose. Information about the risks and benefits according to risk levels was added to the Decision Boxes, to try to ease the adaptation of the information to individual patients.ConclusionResults will guide the development of the eight remaining Decision Boxes. A future study will evaluate the effect of Decision Boxes on the integration of evidence-based and shared decision making principles in clinical practice.

BackgroundFrail seniors often receive ineffective care, which does not meet their needs. It is still unclear how healthcare systems should be redesigned to be more sensitive to the needs and values of frail seniors and their caregivers. We thus aimed to describe key stakeholders’ perspectives on the current healthcare and services available to frail seniors.MethodsIn this qualitative descriptive study, we conducted semi-structured interviews with a convenience sample of 42 frail seniors, caregivers, clinicians, or healthcare administrators/decision makers involved in frail senior care from five Canadian provinces. We explored participants’ perspectives on the quality of care and services for frail seniors. We used an inductive/deductive thematic data analysis approach based on the Square-of-Care model, including emerging themes using the constant comparison method.ResultsWe grouped participants’ perspectives into strengths, weaknesses and opportunities for improvement, and then into nine themes: care processes, continuity of care, social frailty, access to healthcare and services, models of healthcare delivery, cost of care, healthcare staff management and professional development of healthcare providers, material resources and environmental design of healthcare facilities, and coordination of care. Our findings suggest redesigning assessment, communication with frail seniors and their caregivers, targeting care and services to the needs, and integrating care better across settings and in time.ConclusionsA systematic identification of frail older people is the first step to adapt healthcare systems to this population’s needs. Participation of frail older people and their caregivers to decision making would also allow choosing care plans meeting their care goals. The integration of care and services across settings, over time, and with various providers, is also needed to meet frail senior needs.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12877-018-0969-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

To attract FPs to a CPD program in SDM, CPD developers should make the program interesting, enjoyable, and professionally stimulating. They should choose a clinically relevant topic, ensure that the program is interactive and accessible, and include decision support tools.

296/300 words Background: The dynamic relationships between individual-and community-level behaviors and outcomes are at the heart of public health. Herd immunity, or community immunity, offers an example of such a relationship. Community immunity occurs when susceptible people in a population are indirectly protected from infection thanks to the pervasiveness of immunity within the population. Knowledge of such relationship varies among the general public. Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science for peer-reviewed articles describing interventions with or without evaluations. We then conducted web searches with Google to identify interventions lacking associated publications. We extracted data about the target population of the interventions, the interventions themselves (e.g., did they describe what community immunity is, and how it works), any effects of evaluated interventions, and synthesized data narratively. Results: We identified 32 interventions: 11 interventions described in peer-reviewed articles and 21 interventions without associated articles. Of the 32 interventions, 5 described what community immunity is, 6 described the mechanisms of how community immunity occurs and 21 described both. Fourteen of the 32 addressed infectious diseases in general while the other 13 addressed one or more specific diseases. Twelve of the 32 interventions used videos, 7 used interactive simulations and 6 used questionnaires. Ten of the 11 peer-reviewed articles described studies evaluating the effects of the interventions; of these 10, 4 reported increased knowledge about immunization, 3 reported shifts of attitudes in favour of vaccination, 1 reported an increase in intentions to vaccinate among participants who viewed an visual simulation. Conclusions:A compelling benefit of vaccination exists at the population level in the form of community immunity. Identifying ways to do this may be important, because some evidence 6 suggests that effective communication about community immunity can increase vaccine intentions. Highlights (3-5 bullet points, max 85 characters each including spaces)• Little evidence is available about the effects of communicating about community immunity.• Effective communication about community immunity may increase vaccine intentions.• Future research should focus on how to communicate this concept effectively.