Using theory and user-centered design in digital health: The development of the mychoice communication tool to prepare patients and improve informed decision making regarding clinical trial participation.
cancer
clinical trials
development processt
digital health
ehealth
health communciation
informed decision making
patient engagement
theory driven
user centered
Journal
Psycho-oncology
ISSN: 1099-1611
Titre abrégé: Psychooncology
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9214524
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2020
01 2020
Historique:
received:
01
07
2019
revised:
12
09
2019
accepted:
02
10
2019
pubmed:
28
10
2019
medline:
29
9
2020
entrez:
27
10
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Designing salient digital health interventions requires theoretically-based formative research and user-center design with stakeholder input throughout impacting content and technology design. mychoice is a theory-based, stakeholder-guided digital health tool to improve clinical trial informed decision making, particularly among African American patients. mychoice was developed by (1) mixed-methods formative research, including in-depth interviews (n=16) and surveys (N=41) with African American cancer patients who had and had not participated in a clinical trial; (2) e-tool design process including perceptual mapping analysis to prioritize messages, multi-disciplinary team and stakeholder input; and (3) iterative production and user testing. Interview findings showed that clinical trial participants expressed more positive attributes about and an openness to consider clinical trials, even though they expressed common concerns such as "fear of being a guinea pig". Survey results indicated that clinical trial participants expressed they had been given information to make the decision (P = .001), while those who had not more frequently reported (P > .001) that no one had talked to them about trials. Perceptual mapping indicated that values such as "helping find a cure" or "value to society" had little resonance to those who had not participated, providing message strategy for prototype development. User testing of the tool resulted in modifications; the most significant was the adaptation to a multi-cultural version. With the promise of digital health interventions, theory-guided, user-centered and best practice development is critical and mychoice serves as an example of the application of these principles.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
114-122Informations de copyright
© 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Références
Baquet CR. Clinical trials: the art of enrollment. Semin Oncol Nurs. 2008;24(4):262-269.
Unger JM, Cook E, Tai E, Bleyer A. The Role of Clinical Trial Participation in Cancer Research: Barriers, Evidence, and Strategies. American Society of Clinical Oncology educational book. American Society of Clinical Oncology. Annual Meeting. 2016;35:185-198.
Weinberg, A.D. Eliminating Disparities in Clinical Trials. cited 2009 June 4th, 2009; Version 2.
Eads JR, Albrecht T, Egleston B, et al. Knowledge and Attitudes about Cancer Clinical Trials: Impact of Race, Gender and Education. Cancer. 2013.
Symonds RP, Lord K, Mitchell AJ, Raghavan D. Recruitment of ethnic minorities into cancer clinical trials: experience from the front lines. British Journal of Cancer. 107:1017-1021. published online May 2012
Hamel LM, Penner LA, Albrecht TL, Heath E, Gwede CK, Eggly S. Barriers to Clinical Trial Enrollment in Racial and Ethnic Minority Patients with Cancer. Cancer Control. 2016;23(4):327-337.
Davis S, Fleisher L, TerMaat J, Muha C, Laepke K. Treatment and Clinical Trials Decision Making: Impact of the Cancer Information Service Outreach Program. Part 5. Journal of Health Communications. 1998;3:71-85.
Chen MS, Lara PN, Dang JH, Paterniti DA, Kelly K. Twenty years post-NIH Revitalization Act: enhancing minority participation in clinical trials (EMPaCT): laying the groundwork for improving minority clinical trial accrual: renewing the case for enhancing minority participation in cancer clinical trials. Cancer. 2014;120(Suppl 7):1091-1096.
Gadegbeku CA, Stillman PK, Huffman MD, Jackson JS, Kusek JW, Jamerson KA. Factors associated with enrollment of African Americans into a clinical trial: results from the African American study of kidney disease and hypertension. Contemporary Clinical Trials. 2008;29(6):837-842.
American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figures for African Americans; 2016-2018.
Michaels MS. ENACCT and Community-Campus Partnerships for Health, Communities as Partners in Cancer Clinical Trials: Changing Research, Practice and Policy. 2008: Silver Springs, MD.
PEW Internet, June 2019 Mobile Fact Sheet.
PEW Internet, Millennials stand out for their technology use, but older generations also embrace digital life, May 2018.
Hamel L, Thompson H, Alrecht T, Harper F. Designing and Testing Apps to Support Patients With Cancer: Looking to Behavioral Science to Lead the Way. JMIR Cancer. 2019;5(1):e12317.
Kessel KA, Vogel MM, Kessel C, et al. Mobile Health in Oncology: A Patient Survey About App-Assisted Cancer Care. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2017;5(6):e81. Published 2017 Jun 14. https://doi.org/10.2196/mhealth.7689
Kim H, Goldsmith J, Sengupta S, et al. Mobile Health Application and e-Health Literacy: Opportunities and Concerns for Cancer Patients and Caregivers. Journal of Cancer Education. 2017;34(1):3-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-017-1293-5
Miller DP Jr, Weaver KE, Case LD, et al. Usability of a Novel Mobile Health iPad App by Vulnerable Populations. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2017;5(4):e43.
Deci EL. The psychology of self-determination. Lexington, MA: Heath; 1980.
Leventhal H, Phillips LA, Burns E. The common-sense model of self-regulation (CSM): a dynamic framework for understanding illness self-management. J Behav Med. 2016;39(6):935-946. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-016-9782-2
Woelfel J. Galileo and its Applications: Tools for the Study of Cognitive and Cultural Processes. Buffalo, NY: RAH Press; 2018. ISBN:978-1-530687985.
Woelfel J, Fink E. The measurement of communication processes: Galileo theory and method. New York, NY; 1980.
Shannon CE. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal. 1948;27(3):379-423.
Elwyn G, Frosch D, Thomson R, et al. Shared Decision Making: A Model for Clinical Practice. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2012;27(10):1361-1367.
McCaffery KJ, Smith SK, Wolf M. The challenge of shared decision making among patients with lower literacy: A framework for research and development. Med Decis Making. 2010;30:35-44.
Mead EL, Doorenbos AZ, Javid SH, et al. Shared Decision Making for Cancer Care Among Ra cial and Ethnic Minorities: A Systematic Review. Am J Public Health. 2013;103(12):e15-e29. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301631
Peek ME, Odoms Young A, Quinn MT, Gorawara Bhat R, Wilson SC, Chin MH. Racism in healthcare: Its relationship to shared decision-making and health disparities: A response to Bradby. Soc Sci Med. 2010;71(1):13-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.03.018
Stacey D, Legare F, Pouliot S, Kryworuchko J, Dunn S. Shared decision making models to inform an interprofessional perspective on decision making: A theory analysis. Patient Education and Counseling. 2010;80(2):164-172.
Barello S, Triberti S, Graffigna G, et al. EHealth for Patient Engagement: A Systematic Review. Frontiers in Psychology. 2016;6:2013.
Iso.org [homepage on the internet] International Organization of Standardization [Cited 2019 June 25]. Available www.iso.org/standard/52075.html
Fleisher L, Ruggieri DG, Miller SM, et al. Application of best practice approaches for designing decision support tools: The preparatory education about clinical trials (PRE-ACT) study. Patient education and counseling. 2015;96(1):63-71. PMCID: PMC4171039
Krueger RA, Casey MA. Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2000.
Bass SB, Jessop A, Maurer L, Gashat M, Al Hajji M, Guiterrez M. Mapping the barriers and facilitators of HCV treatment initiation in methadone maintenance therapy patients: Implications for intervention development. J. Health Commun. 2017;23(1):117-127. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2017.1414902
Chew L, Bradley K, Boyko E. Brief Questions to Identify Patients with Inadequate Health Literacy. Fam Med. 2004;36(8):588-594.
Bass SB, Gordon TF, Ruzek SB, et al. Developing a computer touch-screen interactive colorectal screening decision aid for a low-literacy African American population: Lessons learned. Health Promot Pract. 2013;14(4):589-598. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839912463394
Bass SB, Wolak C, Greener J, et al. Using perceptual mapping methods to understand gender differences in perceived barriers and benefits of clinical research participation in urban minority HIV+ patients. AIDS Care. 2016;28(4):528-536. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540121.2015.1112352
Fleisher L, Buzaglo J, Collins M, et al. Using Health Communication Best Practices to Develop a Web-Based Provider-Patient Communication Aid: The CONNECT Study™. Patient Education and Counseling. 2008;71(3):378-387.
Fleisher L, Wen K, Miller SM, et al. Development and utilization of complementary communication channels for treatment decision making and survivorship issues among cancer patients: The CIS research consortium experience. Internet Interventions. 2015;2(4):392-398. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.invent.2015.09.002
Brashers DE. Communication and Uncertainty Management. Journal of Communication. 2001;51(3):477-497. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/51.3.477
Krieger JL, Parrott RL, Nussbaum JF. Metaphor Use and Health Literacy: A Pilot Study of Strategies to Explain Randomization in Cancer Clinical Trials. Journal of Health Communication. 2010;16(1):3-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2010.529494