TY - JOUR
T1 - User Involvement in the Design and Development of Patient Decision Aids and Other Personal Health Tools
T2 - A Systematic Review
AU - Vaisson, Gratianne
AU - Provencher, Thierry
AU - Dugas, Michèle
AU - Trottier, Marie Ève
AU - Chipenda Dansokho, Selma
AU - Colquhoun, Heather
AU - Fagerlin, Angela
AU - Giguere, Anik M.C.
AU - Hakim, Hina
AU - Haslett, Lynne
AU - Hoffman, Aubri S.
AU - Ivers, Noah M.
AU - Julien, Anne Sophie
AU - Légaré, France
AU - Renaud, Jean Sébastien
AU - Stacey, Dawn
AU - Volk, Robert J.
AU - Witteman, Holly O.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2021.
PY - 2021/4
Y1 - 2021/4
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - decision making
KW - decision support techniques
KW - health services research
KW - humans
KW - patient education
KW - patient participation
KW - patient-centered care
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85102130009&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85102130009&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/0272989X20984134
DO - 10.1177/0272989X20984134
M3 - Review article
C2 - 33655791
AN - SCOPUS:85102130009
SN - 0272-989X
VL - 41
SP - 261
EP - 274
JO - Medical Decision Making
JF - Medical Decision Making
IS - 3
ER -