Cargando…

Interactive Visual Displays for Interpreting the Results of Clinical Trials: Formative Evaluation With Case Vignettes

BACKGROUND: At the point of care, evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is underutilized in helping clinicians meet their information needs. OBJECTIVE: To design interactive visual displays to help clinicians interpret and compare the results of relevant RCTs for the management of a spec...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bian, Jiantao, Weir, Charlene, Unni, Prasad, Borbolla, Damian, Reese, Thomas, Wan, Yik-Ki Jacob, Del Fiol, Guilherme
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: JMIR Publications 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6037946/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29941416
http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/10507
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: At the point of care, evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is underutilized in helping clinicians meet their information needs. OBJECTIVE: To design interactive visual displays to help clinicians interpret and compare the results of relevant RCTs for the management of a specific patient, and to conduct a formative evaluation with physicians comparing interactive visual versus narrative displays. METHODS: We followed a user-centered and iterative design process succeeded by development of information display prototypes as a Web-based application. We then used a within-subjects design with 20 participants (8 attendings and 12 residents) to evaluate the usability and problem-solving impact of the information displays. We compared subjects’ perceptions of the interactive visual displays versus narrative abstracts. RESULTS: The resulting interactive visual displays present RCT results side-by-side according to the Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome (PICO) framework. Study participants completed 19 usability tasks in 3 to 11 seconds with a success rate of 78% to 100%. Participants favored the interactive visual displays over narrative abstracts according to perceived efficiency, effectiveness, effort, user experience and preference (all P values <.001). CONCLUSIONS: When interpreting and applying RCT findings to case vignettes, physicians preferred interactive graphical and PICO-framework-based information displays that enable direct comparison of the results from multiple RCTs compared to the traditional narrative and study-centered format. Future studies should investigate the use of interactive visual displays to support clinical decision making in care settings and their effect on clinician and patient outcomes.