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

Article Sidebar

Requires Subscription or Fee PDF (USD 25)
Published: Sep 11, 2012
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

Main Article Content

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

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

Article Details

Issue
Vol. 2 No. 3 (2012): September
Section
Person-centered Decision Supports

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.