Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35767340›Full record

ArticleJMIR research protocols2022

Development of a Patient-Centered Preference Tool for Patients With Hematologic Malignancies: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study.

Amy Cole, Daniel R Richardson, Karthik Adapa, Amro Khasawneh, Norah Crossnohere, John F P Bridges, Lukasz Mazur

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR research protocols, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Experiences of treatment decision-making among older newly diagnosed adults with acute myeloid leukemia: a qualitative descriptive study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Amy ColeCarolina Health Informatics Program, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9478-6005
Daniel R RichardsonUniversity of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9310-5773
Karthik AdapaDivision of Healthcare Engineering, Department of Radiation Oncology, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3970-588X
Amro KhasawnehIndustrial Engineering Department, School of Engineering, Mercer University, Macon, GA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3539-2473
Norah CrossnohereDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2811-1330
John F P BridgesDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3082-5535
Lukasz MazurDivision of Healthcare Engineering, Department of Radiation Oncology, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9793-7999
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USThe Ohio State University · USMercer University · US

Funding

Re-Entry Supplement: Investigation of Oral Microbial Enzymes for the Detection and Treatment of Periodontal DiseaseUL1TR002489 · NCATS · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI BUSE, JOHN BERNARD, SHAHEEN, NICHOLAS J · 2018 to 2022
$48.6M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002489
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe approval of novel therapies for patients diagnosed with hematologic malignancies have improved survival outcomes but increased the challenge of aligning chemotherapy choices with patient preferences. We previously developed paper versions of a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and a best-worst scaling (BWS) instrument to quantify the treatment outcome preferences of patients with hematologic malignancies to inform shared decision making.

objectiveWe aim to develop an electronic health care tool (EHT) to guide clinical decision making that uses either a BWS or DCE instrument to capture patient preferences. The primary objective of this study is to use both qualitative and quantitative methods to evaluate the perceived usability, cognitive workload (CWL), and performance of electronic prototypes that include the DCE and BWS instrument.

methodsThis mixed methods study includes iterative co-design methods that will involve healthy volunteers, patient-caregiver pairs, and health care workers to evaluate the perceived usability, CWL, and performance of tasks within distinct prototypes. Think-aloud sessions and semistructured interviews will be conducted to collect qualitative data to develop an affinity diagram for thematic analysis. Validated assessments (Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire [PSSUQ] and the National Aeronautical and Space Administration's Task Load Index [NASA-TLX]) will be used to evaluate the usability and CWL required to complete tasks within the prototypes. Performance assessments of the DCE and BWS will include the evaluation of tasks using the Single Easy Questionnaire (SEQ), time to complete using the prototype, and the number of errors. Additional qualitative assessments will be conducted to gather participants' feedback on visualizations used in the Personalized Treatment Preferences Dashboard that provides a representation of user results after completing the choice tasks within the prototype.

resultsEthical approval was obtained in June 2021 from the Institutional Review Board of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The DCE and BWS instruments were developed and incorporated into the PRIME (Preference Reporting to Improve Management and Experience) prototype in early 2021 and prototypes were completed by June 2021. Heuristic evaluations were conducted in phase 1 and completed by July 2021. Recruitment of healthy volunteers began in August 2021 and concluded in September 2021. In December 2021, our findings from phase 2 were accepted for publication. Phase 3 recruitment began in January 2022 and is expected to conclude in September 2022. The data analysis from phase 3 is expected to be completed by November 2022.

conclusionsOur findings will help differentiate the usability, CWL, and performance of the DCE and BWS within the prototypes. These findings will contribute to the optimization of the prototypes, leading to the development of an EHT that helps facilitate shared decision making. This evaluation will inform the development of EHTs to be used clinically with patients and health care workers. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/39586.

Indexed as

co-designelectronic health care toolshematologic malignanciesinformed decision makingmHealthpatient engagementshared decision making

Identifiers

PMID35767340
PMCPMC9280452
OpenAlexW4281572595

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.