ArticleCJC open2025
Human-Centred Design & Development of a
Article in CJC open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Coronary artery disease (CAD) commonly accompanies chronic kidney disease (CKD) and carries unique management considerations for people with CKD. Shared decision-making (SDM) is a collaborative approach in which patients and physicians make decisions together based on a shared understanding of the health condition, treatment options and attributes, patient values and preferences, and risk tolerance. Our objective was to support SDM by creating a decision aid for patients with CKD and physicians addressing invasive vs conservative CAD treatment options, which included personalized risk estimates for treatment option attributes, and identification of patient values and preferences. Methods: Applying human-centred design, informed by the International Patient Decision Aid Standard and Ottawa Decision Support Framework, we created a personalized Results: Thirty-two patients (47% aged < 65 years; 47% women) and 18 physicians (72% aged < 50 years; 22% women) evaluated successive decision-aid iterations, providing design and implementation perspectives. Most received decision-aid content positively, and the design was refined over 3 development iterations. Overarching development-informing themes were as follows: (i) facilitating patient-physician interactions and knowledge-sharing to enable SDM; (ii) responding to contextual end-user needs for decision-making; and (iii) supporting flexible workflow use and integration. The decision aid is available at: https://myheartandckd.ca. Conclusions: Human-centred design processes effectively guided creation of a decision aid for patients with CKD and physicians making shared CAD treatment decisions. Findings will inform future clinical implementation strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.