Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41001261›Full record

ArticleCJC open2025

Human-Centred Design & Development of a

Julie Babione, Denise Kruger, Pantea Javaheri, Todd Wilson, Winnie Pearson, Wayne Gerber, Loretta Lee, Krystina B Lewis, Michelle M Graham, Stephen B Wilton and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

11 authors.

Julie BabioneDepartment of Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Denise KrugerDepartment of Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Pantea JavaheriDepartment of Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Todd WilsonDepartment of Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Winnie PearsonDepartment of Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Wayne GerberDepartment of Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Loretta LeeDepartment of Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Krystina B LewisSchool of Nursing, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Michelle M GrahamUniversity of Ottawa Heart Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Stephen B WiltonDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Matthew T JamesDepartment of Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

chronic kidney diseasecoronary artery diseasedecision-makingdecision support techniqueshuman-centred design

Identifiers

PMID41001261
PMCPMC12457206

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.