Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2007 Jul 13;9(3):e21.
doi: 10.2196/jmir.9.3.e21.

Toward a model for field-testing patient decision-support technologies: a qualitative field-testing study

Rhodri Evans  1 , Glyn Elwyn, Adrian Edwards, Eila Watson, Joan Austoker, Richard Grol
Affiliations

Toward a model for field-testing patient decision-support technologies: a qualitative field-testing study

Rhodri Evans et al. J Med Internet Res. .

Abstract

Background: Field-testing is a quality assurance criterion in the development of patient decision-support technologies (PDSTs), as identified in the consensus statement of the International Patient Decision Aids Standards Collaboration. We incorporated field-testing into the development of a Web-based, prostate-specific antigen PDST called Prosdex, which was commissioned as part of the UK Prostate Cancer Risk Management Programme.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to develop a model for the future field-testing of PDSTs, based on the field-testing of Prosdex. Our objectives were (1) to explore the reactions of men to evolving prototypes of Prosdex, (2) to assess the effect of these responses on the development process, and (3) to develop a model for field-testing PDSTs based on the responses and their effect on the development process.

Methods: Semistructured interviews were conducted with the men after they had viewed evolving prototypes of Prosdex in their homes. The men were grouped according to the prototype viewed. Men between 40 and 75 years of age were recruited from two family practices in different parts of Wales, United Kingdom. In the interviews, the men were asked for their views on Prosdex, both as a whole and in relation to specific sections such as the introduction and video clips. Comments and technical issues that arose during the viewings were noted and fed back to the developers in order to produce subsequent prototypes.

Results: A total of 27 men were interviewed, in five groups, according to the five prototypes of Prosdex that were developed. The two main themes from the interviews were the responses to the information provided in Prosdex and the responses to specific features of Prosdex. Within these themes, two of the most frequently encountered categories were detail of the information provided and balance between contrasting viewpoints. Criticisms were encountered, particularly with respect to navigation of the site. In addition, we found that participants made little use of the decision-making scale. The introduction of an interactive contents page to prototype 2 was the main change made to Prosdex as a result of the field-testing. Based on our findings, a model for the field-testing of PDSTs was developed, involving an exploratory field-testing stage between the planning stage and the development of the first prototype, and followed by the prototype field-testing stage, leading to the final PDST.

Conclusions: In the field-testing of Prosdex, a Web-based prostate-specific antigen PDST, the responses of interviewed men were generally favorable. As a consequence of the responses, an interactive contents page was added to the site. We developed a model for the future field-testing of PDSTs, involving two stages: exploratory field-testing and prototype field-testing.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None declared.

Figures

Figure 1a
Figure 1a
Prosdex screenshots
Figure 1b
Figure 1b
Prosdex screenshots
Figure 2
Figure 2
Proposed model for field-testing PDSTs
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Elwyn Glyn, O'Connor Annette, Stacey Dawn, Volk Robert, Edwards Adrian, Coulter Angela, Thomson Richard, Barratt Alexandra, Barry Michael, Bernstein Steven, Butow Phyllis, Clarke Aileen, Entwistle Vikki, Feldman-Stewart Deb, Holmes-Rovner Margaret, Llewellyn-Thomas Hilary, Moumjid Nora, Mulley Al, Ruland Cornelia, Sepucha Karen, Sykes Alan, Whelan Tim International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration. Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. BMJ. 2006 Aug 26;333(7565):417. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38926.629329.AE. http://bmj.com/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=16908462bmj.38926.629329.AE - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kim Young Mi, Kols Adrienne, Martin Antonieta, Silva David, Rinehart Ward, Prammawat Sarah, Johnson Sarah, Church Kathryn. Promoting informed choice: evaluating a decision-making tool for family planning clients and providers in Mexico. Int Fam Plan Perspect. 2005 Dec;31(4):162–71. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3116205.html3116205 - PubMed
    1. PROSDEX Home page. [2007 Jun 11]. http://www.prosdex.com/
    1. UK National Screening Committee. Prostate Cancer Risk Management Programme. 2001.
    1. Evans Rhodri, Edwards Adrian, Brett Joanne, Bradburn Mike, Watson Eila, Austoker Joan, Elwyn Glyn. Reduction in uptake of PSA tests following decision aids: systematic review of current aids and their evaluations. Patient Educ Couns. 2005 Jul;58(1):13–26. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2004.06.009.S0738-3991(04)00199-5 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types