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
. 2022 Apr 8;6(4):e29039.
doi: 10.2196/29039.

A Veteran-Centric Web-Based Decision Aid for Lung Cancer Screening: Usability Analysis

Marilyn M Schapira  1   2 , Sumedha Chhatre  1   3 , Jason M Prigge  1 , Jessica Meline  1 , Dana Kaminstein  1   4 , Keri L Rodriguez  5 , Liana Fraenkel  6   7 , Jeffrey D Kravetz  7   8 , Jeff Whittle  9 , Lori A Bastian  7   8 , Anil Vachani  10   11 , Scott Akers  12   13 , Susan Schrand  10 , Jennifer V Ibarra  8 , Onur Asan  14
Affiliations

A Veteran-Centric Web-Based Decision Aid for Lung Cancer Screening: Usability Analysis

Marilyn M Schapira et al. JMIR Form Res. .

Abstract

Background: Web-based tools developed to facilitate a shared decision-making (SDM) process may facilitate the implementation of lung cancer screening (LCS), an evidence-based intervention to improve cancer outcomes. Veterans have specific risk factors and shared experiences that affect the benefits and potential harms of LCS and thus may value a veteran-centric LCS decision tool (LCSDecTool).

Objective: This study aims to conduct usability testing of an LCSDecTool designed for veterans receiving care at a Veteran Affairs medical center.

Methods: Usability testing of the LCSDecTool was conducted in a prototype version (phase 1) and a high-fidelity version (phase 2). A total of 18 veterans and 8 clinicians participated in phase 1, and 43 veterans participated in phase 2. Quantitative outcomes from the users included the System Usability Scale (SUS) and the End User Computing Satisfaction (EUCS) in phase 1 and the SUS, EUCS, and Patient Engagement scale in phase 2. Qualitative data were obtained from observations of user sessions and brief interviews. The results of phase 1 informed the modifications of the prototype for the high-fidelity version. Phase 2 usability testing took place in the context of a pilot hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation trial.

Results: In the phase 1 prototype usability testing, the mean SUS score (potential range: 0-100) was 81.90 (SD 9.80), corresponding to an excellent level of usability. The mean EUCS score (potential range: 1-5) was 4.30 (SD 0.71). In the phase 2 high-fidelity usability testing, the mean SUS score was 65.76 (SD 15.23), corresponding to a good level of usability. The mean EUCS score was 3.91 (SD 0.95); and the mean Patient Engagement scale score (potential range 1 [low] to 5 [high]) was 4.62 (SD 0.67). The median time to completion in minutes was 13 (IQR 10-16). A thematic analysis of user statements documented during phase 2 high-fidelity usability testing identified the following themes: a low baseline level of awareness and knowledge about LCS increased after use of the LCSDecTool; users sought more detailed descriptions about the LCS process; the LCSDecTool was generally easy to use, but specific navigation challenges remained; some users noted difficulty understanding medical terms used in the LCSDecTool; and use of the tool evoked veterans' struggles with prior attempts at smoking cessation.

Conclusions: Our findings support the development and use of this eHealth technology in the primary care clinical setting as a way to engage veterans, inform them about a new cancer control screening test, and prepare them to participate in an SDM discussion with their provider.

Keywords: cancer screening; decision aid; implementation; lung cancer screening; mobile phone; patient engagement; shared decision-making; usability; veterans.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Illustration of the dialog feature in the lung cancer screening decision tool (LCSDecTool).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Illustration of the pictograph feature in the lung cancer screening decision tool (LCSDecTool). CT: computed tomography.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Illustration of the knowledge box feature in the lung cancer screening decision tool (LCSDecTool).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Illustration of the value elicitation feature of the lung cancer screening decision tool (LCSDecTool).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Elwyn G, Frosch D, Thomson R, Joseph-Williams N, Lloyd A, Kinnersley P, Cording E, Tomson D, Dodd C, Rollnick S, Edwards A, Barry M. Shared decision making: a model for clinical practice. J Gen Intern Med. 2012 Oct 23;27(10):1361–7. doi: 10.1007/s11606-012-2077-6. http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/22618581 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Armstrong KA, Metlay JP. Clinical decision making: communicating risk and engaging patients in shared decision making. Ann Intern Med. 2020 May 19;172(10):688–92. doi: 10.7326/M19-3495.2764853 - DOI - PubMed
    1. de Koning HJ, van der Aalst CM, de Jong PA, Scholten ET, Nackaerts K, Heuvelmans MA, Lammers JJ, Weenink C, Yousaf-Khan U, Horeweg N, van 't Westeinde S, Prokop M, Mali WP, Mohamed Hoesein FA, van Ooijen PM, Aerts JG, den Bakker MA, Thunnissen E, Verschakelen J, Vliegenthart R, Walter JE, Haaf KT, Groen HJ, Oudkerk M. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with volume ct screening in a randomized trial. N Engl J Med. 2020 Feb 06;382(6):503–13. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1911793. - DOI - PubMed
    1. National Lung Screening Trial Research Team. Aberle DR, Adams AM, Berg CD, Black WC, Clapp JD, Fagerstrom RM, Gareen IF, Gatsonis C, Marcus PM, Sicks JD. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med. 2011 Aug 04;365(5):395–409. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1102873. http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/21714641 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Moyer VA, U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Screening for lung cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2014 Mar 04;160(5):330–8. doi: 10.7326/M13-2771. https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/abs/10.7326/M13-2771?url_ver=Z39.88-2003... 1809422 - DOI - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources