↓ Skip to main content

Involving members of vulnerable populations in the development of patient decision aids: a mixed methods sequential explanatory study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#43 of 2,154)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
50 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
131 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Involving members of vulnerable populations in the development of patient decision aids: a mixed methods sequential explanatory study
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12911-016-0399-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michèle Dugas, Marie-Ève Trottier, Selma Chipenda Dansokho, Gratianne Vaisson, Thierry Provencher, Heather Colquhoun, Maman Joyce Dogba, Sophie Dupéré, Angela Fagerlin, Anik M. C. Giguere, Lynne Haslett, Aubri S. Hoffman, Noah M. Ivers, France Légaré, Jean Légaré, Carrie A. Levin, Matthew Menear, Jean-Sébastien Renaud, Dawn Stacey, Robert J. Volk, Holly O. Witteman

Abstract

Patient decision aids aim to present evidence relevant to a health decision in understandable ways to support patients through the process of making evidence-informed, values-congruent health decisions. It is recommended that, when developing these tools, teams involve people who may ultimately use them. However, there is little empirical evidence about how best to undertake this involvement, particularly for specific populations of users such as vulnerable populations. To describe and compare the development practices of research teams that did and did not specifically involve members of vulnerable populations in the development of patient decision aids, we conducted a secondary analysis of data from a systematic review about the development processes of patient decision aids. Then, to further explain our quantitative results, we conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with 10 teams: 6 that had specifically involved members of vulnerable populations and 4 that had not. Two independent analysts thematically coded transcribed interviews. Out of a total of 187 decision aid development projects, 30 (16%) specifically involved members of vulnerable populations. The specific involvement of members of vulnerable populations in the development process was associated with conducting informal needs assessment activities (73% vs. 40%, OR 2.96, 95% CI 1.18-7.99, P = .02) and recruiting participants through community-based organizations (40% vs. 11%, OR 3.48, 95% CI 1.23-9.83, P = .02). In interviews, all developers highlighted the importance, value and challenges of involving potential users. Interviews with developers whose projects had involved members of vulnerable populations suggested that informal needs assessment activities served to center the decision aid around users' needs, to better avoid stigma, and to ensure that the topic truly matters to the community. Partnering with community-based organizations may facilitate relationships of trust and may also provide a non-threatening and accessible location for research activities. There are a small number of key differences in the development processes for patient decision aids in which members of vulnerable populations were or were not specifically involved. Some of these practices may require additional time or resources. To address health inequities, researchers, communities and funders may need to increase awareness of these approaches and plan accordingly.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 50 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 131 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 130 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 26 20%
Student > Master 18 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 11%
Student > Bachelor 12 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Other 26 20%
Unknown 24 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 18%
Social Sciences 15 11%
Psychology 7 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 4%
Other 20 15%
Unknown 35 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 April 2022.
All research outputs
#1,130,475
of 25,602,335 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#43
of 2,154 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,516
of 421,820 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#2
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,602,335 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,154 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 421,820 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.