Cargando…

User-testing an interactive option grid decision aid for prostate cancer screening: lessons to improve usability

OBJECTIVE: To user-test a web-based, interactive Option Grid decision aid ‘prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test: yes or no?’ to determine its usability, acceptability and feasibility with men of high and low health literacy. DESIGN: A semi-structured interview study. SETTING: Interviews were conduct...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Scalia, Peter, Durand, Marie-Anne, Faber, Marjan, Kremer, J A, Song, Julia, Elwyn, Glyn
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6538002/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31133587
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026748
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: To user-test a web-based, interactive Option Grid decision aid ‘prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test: yes or no?’ to determine its usability, acceptability and feasibility with men of high and low health literacy. DESIGN: A semi-structured interview study. SETTING: Interviews were conducted at a senior centre, academic hospital or college library in New Hampshire and Vermont. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals over 45 years of age with no history of prostate cancer who voluntarily contacted study authors after viewing local invitations were eligible for inclusion. Twenty interviews were conducted: 10 participants had not completed a college degree, of which eight had low health literacy, and 10 participants had high health literacy. INTERVENTION: An interactive, web-based Option Grid patient decision aid for considering whether or not to have a PSA test. RESULTS: Users with lower health literacy levels were able to understand the content in the tool but were not able to navigate the Option Grid independent of assistance. The tool was used independently by men with high health literacy. In terms of acceptability, the flow of questions and answers embedded in the tool did not seem intuitive to some users who preferred seeing more risk information related to age and family history. Users envisioned that the tool could be feasibly implemented in clinical workflows. CONCLUSION: Men in our sample with limited health literacy had difficulty navigating the Option Grid, thus suggesting that the tool was not appropriately designed to be usable by all audiences. The information provided in the tool is acceptable, but users preferred to view personalised risk information. Some participants could envision using this tool prior to an encounter in order to facilitate a better dialogue with their clinician. ETHICS APPROVAL: The study received ethical approval from the Dartmouth College Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects (STUDY00030116).