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 Sep 6;5(3):e35381.
doi: 10.2196/35381.

User Experience of a Computer-Based Decision Aid for Prenatal Trisomy Screening: Mixed Methods Explanatory Study

Titilayo Tatiana Agbadje  1 , Chantale Pilon  1 , Pierre Bérubé  2 , Jean-Claude Forest  3 , François Rousseau  3 , Samira Abbasgholizadeh Rahimi  4   5 , Yves Giguère  3 , France Légaré  1   6
Affiliations

User Experience of a Computer-Based Decision Aid for Prenatal Trisomy Screening: Mixed Methods Explanatory Study

Titilayo Tatiana Agbadje et al. JMIR Pediatr Parent. .

Abstract

Background: Mobile health tools can support shared decision-making. We developed a computer-based decision aid (DA) to help pregnant women and their partners make informed, value-congruent decisions regarding prenatal screening for trisomy.

Objective: This study aims to assess the usability and usefulness of computer-based DA among pregnant women, clinicians, and policy makers.

Methods: For this mixed methods sequential explanatory study, we planned to recruit a convenience sample of 45 pregnant women, 45 clinicians from 3 clinical sites, and 15 policy makers. Eligible women were aged >18 years and >16 weeks pregnant or had recently given birth. Eligible clinicians and policy makers were involved in prenatal care. We asked the participants to navigate a computer-based DA. We asked the women about the usefulness of the DA and their self-confidence in decision-making. We asked all participants about usability, quality, acceptability, satisfaction with the content of the DA, and collected sociodemographic data. We explored participants' reactions to the computer-based DA and solicited suggestions. Our interview guide was based on the Mobile App Rating Scale. We performed descriptive analyses of the quantitative data and thematic deductive and inductive analyses of the qualitative data for each participant category.

Results: A total of 45 pregnant women, 14 clinicians, and 8 policy makers participated. Most pregnant women were aged between 25 and 34 years (34/45, 75%) and White (42/45, 94%). Most clinicians were aged between 35 and 44 years (5/14, 36%) and women (11/14, 79%), and all were White (14/14, 100%); the largest proportion of policy makers was aged between 45 and 54 years (4/8, 50%), women (5/8, 62%), and White (8/8, 100%). The mean usefulness score for preparing for decision-making for women was 80/100 (SD 13), and the mean self-efficacy score was 88/100 (SD 11). The mean usability score was 84/100 (SD 14) for pregnant women, 77/100 (SD 14) for clinicians, and 79/100 (SD 23) for policy makers. The mean global score for quality was 80/100 (SD 9) for pregnant women, 72/100 (SD 12) for clinicians, and 80/100 (SD 9) for policy makers. Regarding acceptability, participants found the amount of information just right (52/66, 79%), balanced (58/66, 88%), useful (38/66, 58%), and sufficient (50/66, 76%). The mean satisfaction score with the content was 84/100 (SD 13) for pregnant women, 73/100 (SD 16) for clinicians, and 73/100 (SD 20) for policy makers. Participants thought the DA could be more engaging (eg, more customizable) and suggested strategies for implementation, such as incorporating it into clinical guidelines.

Conclusions: Pregnant women, clinicians, and policy makers found the DA usable and useful. The next steps are to incorporate user suggestions for improving engagement and implementing the computer-based DA in clinical practice.

Keywords: Down syndrome; computer-based decision aid; mixed methods; prenatal screening; shared decision-making; trisomy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flowchart of participants: pregnant women, clinicians, and policy makers.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. St-Jacques S, Grenier S, Charland M, Forest JC, Rousseau F, Légaré F. Decisional needs assessment regarding Down syndrome prenatal testing: a systematic review of the perceptions of women, their partners and health professionals. Prenat Diagn. 2008 Dec;28(13):1183–203. doi: 10.1002/pd.2059. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Giguere A, Légaré F, Grad R, Pluye P, Haynes RB, Cauchon M, Rousseau F, Alvarez Argote J, Labrecque M. Decision boxes for clinicians to support evidence-based practice and shared decision making: the user experience. Implement Sci. 2012 Aug 03;7:72. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-7-72. https://implementationscience.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1748-59... 1748-5908-7-72 - DOI - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Légaré F, Kearing S, Clay K, Gagnon S, D'Amours D, Rousseau M, O'Connor A. Are you SURE?: assessing patient decisional conflict with a 4-item screening test. Can Fam Physician. 2010 Aug;56(8):e308–14. http://www.cfp.ca/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=20705870 56/8/e308 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Makoul G, Clayman ML. An integrative model of shared decision making in medical encounters. Patient Educ Couns. 2006 Mar;60(3):301–12. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2005.06.010.S0738-3991(05)00178-3 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango) Soc Sci Med. 1997 Mar;44(5):681–92. doi: 10.1016/s0277-9536(96)00221-3.S0277953696002213 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources