Stakeholder field-testing of amnioDex, a person-centered decision support intervention for amniocentesis

Authors

  • Marie-Anne Durand Lecturer in Psychology, Scholl of Psychology, University of Hertfordshire, UK and The Dartmouth Centre for Health Care Delivery Science, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA
  • Jacky Boivin Professor, Cardiff Fertility Studies Research Group, School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff UK
  • Glyn Elwyn Professor, Institute of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Heath Park, Cardiff, UK

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5750/ijpcm.v2i3.271

Keywords:

Amniocentesis, decision aid, decision support interventions, field-testing, internet, person-centered medicine, prenatal diagnosis, prenatal testing

Abstract

Objectives: To field-test a patient-targeted Decision Support Intervention (DESI) for amniocentesis (amnioDex) and make progress towards elaborating concrete guidelines for field-testing complex interventions. Methods: Participants used incremental prototypes of amnioDex and answered a questionnaire or took part in a semi-structured interview. The field test was divided into three independent phases: (1) field-testing with lay users; (2) field-testing with health professionals and (3) field-testing with pregnant women considering an amniocentesis.Results: AmnioDex version 1 was tested with 10 lay users, who identified several navigation and lay-out difficulties. All errors were addressed to create amnioDex version 2, subsequently tested with 9 health professionals. Most health professionals found the website easy to navigate and pleasantly structured with appropriate images, useful video clips and well laid out web-pages. AmnioDex version 3 was revised according to these comments and tested with 15 pregnant women. The majority of pregnant women responded positively to the design, graphic-based elements (e.g., video clips, diagrams, images) and informational content of amnioDex.Conclusions: AmnioDex was judged helpful by most users. Field-testing appears essential in ensuring that the DESI content, design and usability is acceptable to both users and health professionals prior to evaluation and implementation

References

Elwyn, G., Frosch, D. & Rollnick, S. (2009). Dual equipoise shared decision-making: definitions for decision and behaviour support interventions. Implementation Science 18, 4-75.

Elwyn, G., Frosch, D.L., Volandes, A.E., Edwards, A.G.K. & Montori, V.M. (2009). Investing in deliberation: a definition and classification of decision support interventions for people facing difficult health decisions. John M Eisenberg Center for Clinical Decisions and Communication: White Paper Series Gaithersberg, Maryland, USA.

Evans, R., Elwyn, G., Edwards, A., Watson, E., Austoker, J. & Grol, R. (2007). Toward a model for field-testing patient decision-support technologies: a qualitative field-testing study. Journal of Medical Internet Research 9 (3) e21.

Elwyn, G., O'Connor, A., Stacey, D., Volk, R., Edwards, A., Coulter, A., Thomson, R., Barrat, A., Barry, A., Bernstein, S., Butow, P., Clarke, A., Entwistle, V., Feldman-Stewart, D., Holmes-Rovner, M., Llewellyn-Thomas, H., Moumjid, N., Mulley, A., Ruland, C., Sepucha, K., Sykes, A., Whelat, T. & International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration. (2006). Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. British Medical Journal 333 (7565) 417.

Durand, M.A., Stiel, M., Boivin, J. & Elwyn, G. (2008). Where is the theory? Evaluating the theoretical frameworks described in decision support technologies. Patient Education and Counseling 71 (1) 125-135.

Kim, Y.M., Kols, A., Martin, A., Silva, D., Rinehart, W., Prammawat, S., Johnson, S. & Church, K. (2005). Promoting informed choice: evaluating a decision-making tool for family planning clients and providers in Mexico. International Family Planning Perspectives 31 (4) 162-171.

Gray, W.D. & Salzman, M.C. (1998). Damaged merchandise? A review of experiments that compare usability evaluation methods. Human-computer interaction 13, 203-261.

Maguire, M. (2001). Methods to support human-centered design. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 55, 587-634.

Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability engineering. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.

Cotton, D. & Gresty, K. (2006). Reflecting on the think-aloud method for evaluating e-learning. British Journal of Educational Technology 37 (1) 45-54.

Ericsson, K.A. & Simon, A.S. (1984). Protocol Analyses, Verbal Reports as Data. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Jaspers, M.W. (2009). A comparison of usability methods for testing interactive health technologies: Methodological aspects and empirical evidence. International Journal of Medical Informatics 78 (5) 340-353.

Durand, M.A., Stiel, M., Boivin, J. & Elwyn, G. (2010). Information and decision support need of parents considering amniocentesis: a qualitative study of pregnant women and health professionals. Health Expectations 13 (2) 125-138.

Gaudry, P., Grange, G., Lebbar, A., Choiset, A., Girard, S., Goffinet, F. & Lewin, F. (2008). Fetal loss after amniocentesis in a series of 5,780 procedures. Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy 23 (3) 217-221.

Palo, P., Piiroinen, O., Honkonen, E., Lakkala, T. & Aula, P. (1994). Transabdominal chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis for prenatal diagnosis: 5 years' experience at a university centre. Prenatal Diagnosis 14 (3) 157-162.

Tabor, A., Philip, J., Madsen, M., Bang, J., Obel, E.B. & Norgaard-Pedersen, B. (1986). Randomised controlled trial of genetic amniocentesis in 4606 low-risk women. Lancet 7 (1) 1287-1293.

Asch, A. (1999). Prenatal diagnosis and selective abortion: a challenge to practice and policy. American Journal of Public Health 89, 649–657.

Korenromp, M.J., Christiaens, G.C., van den Bout, J., Mulder, E.J., Hunfeld, J.A., Bilardo, C.M., Offermans, J.P. & Visser, G.H. (2005). Long-term psychological consequences of pregnancy termination for fetal abnormality: a cross-sectional study. Prenatal Diagnosis 25 (3) 253-260.

Korenromp, M.J., Page-Christiaens, G.C., van den Bout, J., Mulder, E.J., Hunfeld, J.A., Bilardo, C.M., Offermans, J.P. & Visser, G.H. (2005). Psychological consequences of termination of pregnancy for fetal anomaly: similarities and differences between partners. Prenatal Diagnosis 25 (13) 1226-1233.

Korenromp, M.J., Page-Christiaens, G.C., van den Bout, J., Mulder, E.J., Hunfeld, J.A., Potters, C.M., Erwich, J.J., van Binsbergen, C.J., Brons, J.T., Beekhuis, J.R., Omtziqt, A.W. & Visser, G.H. (2007). A prospective study on parental coping 4 months after termination of pregnancy for fetal anomalies. Prenatal Diagnosis 27 (8) 709-716.

Tijmstra, T., Bosboom, G.J. & Bouman, K. (2004). Prenatal dianosis of Down’s syndrome: experiences of women who decided to continue with the pregnancy. International Journal of Risk and Safety in Medicine 16, 91-96.

Svenson, O. (1992). Differentiation and consolidation theory of human decison making: A frame of reference for the study of pre- and post-decision processes. Acta Psyhcologica 80, 143-168.

Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47 (2) 263-292.

Durand, M.A., Wegwarth, O., Boivin, J. & Elwyn, G. (2012). Heuristic-based deliberation tools for women facing amniocentesis. Health Expectations 15 (1) 32-48.

Davison, G.C., Vogel, R.S. & Coffman, S.G. (1997). Think-aloud approaches to cognitive assessment and the articulated thoughts in simulated situations paradigm. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 65 (6) 950-958.

Fonteyn, M. & Fisher, A. (1995). Use of think aloud method to study nurses' reasoning and decision making in clinical practice settings. Journal of Neuroscience Nursing 27 (2) 124-128.

Funkesson, K.H., Anbacken, E.M. & Ek, A.C. (2007). Nurses' reasoning process during care planning taking pressure ulcer prevention as an example. A think-aloud study. International Journal of Nursing Studies 44 (7) 1109-1119.

Johnson, C.M., Johnson, T.R. & Zhang, J. (2005). A user-centered framework for redesigning health care interfaces. Journal of Biomedical Informatics 38 (1) 75-87.

Peleg, M., Shachak, A., Wang, D. & Karnieli, E. (2009). Using multi-perspective methodologies to study users' interactions with the prototype front end of a guideline-based decision support system for diabetic foot care. International Journal of Medical Informatics 78 (7) 482-493.

Marteau, T.M. (1993). Obstetricians presenting amniocentesis to pregnant women: practice observed. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology 11, 3-10.

Marteau, T.M., Cook, R., Kidd, J., Michie, S., Johnston, M., Slack, J. & Shaw, R.W. (1992). The psychological effects of false-positive results in prenatal screening for fetal abnormality: a prospective study. Prenatal Diagnosis 12 (3) 205-214.

Published

2012-09-11

Issue

Section

Person-centered Decision Supports