Background: Patient decision aids (PDAs) can support the treatment decision making process and empower patients to take a proactive role in their treatment pathway while using a shared decision-making (SDM) approach making participatory medicine possible. The aim of this study was to develop a PDA for prostate cancer that is accurate and user-friendly. Methods: We followed a user-centered design process consisting of five rounds of semi-structured interviews and usability surveys with topics such as informational/decisional needs of users and requirements for PDAs. Our userbase consisted of 8 urologists, 4 radiation oncologists, 2 oncology nurses, 8 general practitioners, 19 former prostate cancer patients, 4 usability experts and 11 healthy volunteers. Results: Informational needs for patients centered on three key factors: treatment experience, post-treatment quality of life, and the impact of side effects. Patients and clinicians valued a PDA that presents balanced information on these factors through simple understandable language and visual aids. Usability questionnaires revealed that patients were more satisfied overall with the PDA than clinicians; however, both groups had concerns that the PDA might lengthen consultation times (42 and 41%, respectively). The PDA is accessible on http://beslissamen.nl/. Conclusions: User-centered design provided valuable insights into PDA requirements but challenges in integrating diverse perspectives as clinicians focus on clinical outcomes while patients also consider quality of life. Nevertheless, it is crucial to involve a broad base of clinical users in order to better understand the decision-making process and to develop a PDA that is accurate, usable, and acceptable.
Introduction:The recently published 2018 ESPEN Guidelines on Clinical Nutrition in the Intensive Care Unit [1] represents a valuable revision of the 2006 Enteral Nutrition Guidelines [2] and the 2009 Parenteral Nutrition Guidelines [3] published earlier by this European group. The guidelines committee members have done an excellent job in putting thismanuscript together, providing directives that are clear, concise, brief, and most importantly, transparent. They included only studies published since 2000 for use in their meta-analyses, commenting that this time of transition heralded a new era in the literature involving higher quality randomized control trials (RCTs) and methodologic innovations such as trial registry. Not mentioned (but felt by many within the nutrition community) was the sense that this particular time was a tipping point, following the publication of Van den Berghe’s seminal paper on intensive insulin therapy [4]. Studies published in nutrition prior to this date were felt to reflect an older more antiquated style of management that was less effective. These authors utilized the persistent inflammation catabolism syndrome (PICS) system where four parameters (the patient, intervention, controls, and outcomes) are clearly described, which in turn direct the questions that the guideline committee members were to address. Quality of evidence was assessed by GRADE methodology, and a cut-off date of August 2017 for data entry from the literature was clearly identified. Not all of the recommendations were based on RCTs. The authors are to be commended in that they provided recommendations based on Level 4 low-quality evidence, in areas where RCTs were not available, clearly taking advantage of the group of experts on the committee to provide practical guidance for clinicians where there was a paucity of literature to support evidence-based practices.
For care professionals, the main drive and, related to that, their job satisfaction, is based on being able to satisfy the needs of those who receive their care. Furthermore, most professionals working in contexts in which chronic care is provided, value inter-collegial respect and appreciation of supervisors. Therefore, success and failure factors of implementation of technology in health-care situations are associated with the disruption or support of these values. Mostly, health-care professionals do not themselves think about technological solutions for clinical problems, and therefore, they need support in relating technological solutions to care recipients’ needs. In this chapter, a short overview of professional values is given. Next, we outline how technology can be seen as disrupting professional values but also how it can be supportive of professional values, sometimes unexpected, as practice examples show. The chapter is concluded by consequences for daily practice and education in health-care professions.
