DEVELOPING A DECISION AID TO HELP PROVIDE INFORMED CONSENT FOR RESEARCH; A USER-CENTERED DESIGN APPROACH

Monday, October 21, 2013
Key Ballroom Foyer (Hilton Baltimore)
Poster Board # P2-30
Decision Psychology and Shared Decision Making (DEC)

Jamie C. Brehaut, PhD1, Kelly Carroll1, Glyn Elwyn, MB, BCh, MSc, FRCGP, PhD2, Raphael Saginur, MD3, Kaveh Shojania, MD4, Jonathan Kimmelman, PhD5 and Dean Fergusson, PhD1, (1)Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada, (2)Dartmouth Center for Health Care Delivery Science, Hanover, NH, (3)The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON, Canada, (4)Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada, (5)McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
Purpose:

Informed consent for research has traditionally emphasized information provision over support to people making a difficult decision. We have argued that applying the shared decision making model to informed consent decisions would benefit both trial participants and trialists. Here we describe initial efforts to develop a decision aid for thrombophilic pregnant women being asked to participate in a trial testing different oral anti-coagulants.

Method:

We are employing User-Centered Design to modify a template inspired by the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) framework. Phase 1 of data collection involves cognitive walkthroughs with experts in computer usability (n=2), decision aids (n=2), ethical review (n=1) and the clinical content area (n=3)  of a draft decision aid based on an existing trial testing low molecular weight heparin as an intervention for thrombophilic pregnant women. Cognitive walkthroughs elicited general design principles and document-specific improvements. 

Result: Expert-identified design principles included 1) hyperlinking legal and technical information that can be seen to ‘clutter’ an ICD; 2) clear and concise summarization of decision options; 3) presenting advantages and disadvantages of both participation and non participation in a head to head fashion, thus facilitating direct comparisons; 4) presenting risks consistently in terms of severity and rarity; 5) Explicit exercises to clarify which advantages and disadvantages matter most; 6) eliciting further discussion by providing space to write down questions or concerns; 7) summarizing all study procedures in a table; 8) clearly differentiating procedures that are standard of care from those that are study specific; 9) Use of simplified, consistent language.

Conclusion:

   The UCD approach provides a useful approach for taking IPDAS –inspired principles and turning them into a practicable and testable decision aid for potential RCT participants. Design principles identified here should be considered for any efforts to develop a decision aid for informed consent decisions.