Behavioural interventions delivered through interactive social media for health behaviour change, health outcomes, and health equity in the adult population.

BACKGROUND: Social networking platforms offer a wide reach for public health interventions allowing communication with broad audiences using tools that are generally free and straightforward to use and may be combined with other components, such as public health policies. We define interactive social media as activities, practices, or behaviours among communities of people who have gathered online to interactively share information, knowledge, and opinions. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the effectiveness of interactive social media interventions, in which adults are able to communicate directly with each other, on changing health behaviours, body functions, psychological health, well-being, and adverse effects. Our secondary objective was to assess the effects of these interventions on the health of populations who experience health inequity as defined by PROGRESS-Plus. We assessed whether there is evidence about PROGRESS-Plus populations being included in studies and whether results are analysed across any of these characteristics. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE (including trial registries) and PsycINFO. We used Google, Web of Science, and relevant web sites to identify additional studies and searched reference lists of included studies. We searched for published and unpublished studies from 2001 until June 1, 2020. We did not limit results by language. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled before-and-after (CBAs) and interrupted time series studies (ITSs). We included studies in which the intervention website, app, or social media platform described a goal of changing a health behaviour, or included a behaviour change technique. The social media intervention had to be delivered to adults via a commonly-used social media platform or one that mimicked a commonly-used platform. We included studies comparing an interactive social media intervention alone or as a component of a multi-component intervention with either a non-interactive social media control or an active but less-interactive social media comparator (e.g. a moderated versus an unmoderated discussion group). Our main outcomes were health behaviours (e.g. physical activity), body function outcomes (e.g. blood glucose), psychological health outcomes (e.g. depression), well-being, and adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were process outcomes important for behaviour change and included knowledge, attitudes, intention and motivation, perceived susceptibility, self-efficacy, and social support. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used a pre-tested data extraction form and collected data independently, in duplicate. Because we aimed to assess broad outcomes, we extracted only one outcome per main and secondary outcome categories prioritised by those that were the primary outcome as reported by the study authors, used in a sample size calculation, and patient-important. MAIN RESULTS: We included 88 studies (871,378 participants), of which 84 were RCTs, three were CBAs and one was an ITS. The majority of the studies were conducted in the USA (54%). In total, 86% were conducted in high-income countries and the remaining 14% in upper middle-income countries. The most commonly used social media platform was Facebook (39%) with few studies utilising other platforms such as WeChat, Twitter, WhatsApp, and Google Hangouts. Many studies (48%) used web-based communities or apps that mimic functions of these well-known social media platforms. We compared studies assessing interactive social media interventions with non-interactive social media interventions, which included paper-based or in-person interventions or no intervention. We only reported the RCT results in our 'Summary of findings' table. We found a range of effects on health behaviours, such as breastfeeding, condom use, diet quality, medication adherence, medical screening and testing, physical activity, tobacco use, and vaccination. For example, these interventions may increase physical activity and medical screening tests but there was little to no effect for other health behaviours, such as improved diet or reduced tobacco use (20,139 participants in 54 RCTs). For body function outcomes, interactive social media interventions may result in small but important positive effects, such as a small but important positive effect on weight loss and a small but important reduction in resting heart rate (4521 participants in 30 RCTs). Interactive social media may improve overall well-being (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.79, moderate effect, low-certainty evidence) demonstrated by an increase of 3.77 points on a general well-being scale (from 1.15 to 6.48 points higher) where scores range from 14 to 70 (3792 participants in 16 studies). We found no difference in effect on psychological outcomes (depression and distress) representing a difference of 0.1 points on a standard scale in which scores range from 0 to 63 points (SMD -0.01, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.12, low-certainty evidence, 2070 participants in 12 RCTs). We also compared studies assessing interactive social media interventions with those with an active but less interactive social media control (11 studies). Four RCTs (1523 participants) that reported on physical activity found an improvement demonstrated by an increase of 28 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity per week (from 10 to 47 minutes more, SMD 0.35, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.59, small effect, very low-certainty evidence). Two studies found little to no difference in well-being for those in the intervention and control groups (SMD 0.02, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.13, small effect, low-certainty evidence), demonstrated by a mean change of 0.4 points on a scale with a range of 0 to 100. Adverse events related to the social media component of the interventions, such as privacy issues, were not reported in any of our included studies. We were unable to conduct planned subgroup analyses related to health equity as only four studies reported relevant data. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review combined data for a variety of outcomes and found that social media interventions that aim to increase physical activity may be effective and social media interventions may improve well-being. While we assessed many other outcomes, there were too few studies to compare or, where there were studies, the evidence was uncertain. None of our included studies reported adverse effects related to the social media component of the intervention. Future studies should assess adverse events related to the interactive social media component and should report on population characteristics to increase our understanding of the potential effect of these interventions on reducing health inequities.

Behavior Change Techniques Included in Reports of Social Media Interventions for Promoting Health Behaviors in Adults: Content Analysis Within a Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Social media are an increasingly commonly used platform for delivering health promotion interventions. Although recent research has focused on the effectiveness of social media interventions for health promotion, very little is known about the optimal content within such interventions, and the active ingredients to promote health behavior change using social media are not clear. Identifying which behavior change techniques (BCTs) are reported may help to clarify the content of interventions using a generalizable terminology that may facilitate future intervention development. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify which BCTs are reported in social media interventions for promoting health behavior change in adults. METHODS: We included 71 studies conducted with adult participants (aged ≥18 years) and for which social media intervention was considered interactive in a Cochrane review of the effectiveness of such interventions. We developed a coding manual informed by the Behavior Change Technique Taxonomy version 1 (BCTTv1) to identify BCTs in the included studies. We identified BCTs in all study arms (including control) and described BCTs in the group and self-directed components of studies. We characterized the dose of delivery for each BCT by low and high intensity. We used descriptive analyses to characterize the reported BCTs. RESULTS: Our data consisted of 71 studies published from 2001 to 2017, mainly conducted in high-income countries (n=65). Most studies (n=31) used tailored, interactive websites to deliver the intervention; Facebook was the most used mainstream platform. In developing our coding manual, we adapted some BCTTv1 instructions to better capture unique nuances of how BCTs were operationalized in social media with respect to likes, retweets, smiles, congratulations, and badges. Social support (unspecified), instruction on how to perform the behavior, and credible source were most frequently identified BCTs in intervention arms of studies and group-delivery settings, whereas instruction on how to perform the behavior was most commonly applied in self-directed components of studies, control arms, and individual participant settings. Instruction on how to perform the behavior was also the most frequently reported BCT in both intervention and control arms simultaneously. Instruction on how to perform the behavior, social support (unspecified), self-monitoring of behavior, information about health consequences, and credible source were identified in the top 5 BCTs delivered with the highest intensity. CONCLUSIONS: This study within a review provides a detailed description of the BCTs and their dose to promote behavior change in web-based, interactive social media interventions. Clarifying active ingredients in social media interventions and the intensity of their delivery may help to develop future interventions that can more clearly build upon the existing evidence.

Reporting of health equity considerations in cluster and individually randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: The randomized controlled trial (RCT) is considered the gold standard study design to inform decisions about the effectiveness of interventions. However, a common limitation is inadequate reporting of the applicability of the intervention and trial results for people who are "socially disadvantaged" and this can affect policy-makers' decisions. We previously developed a framework for identifying health-equity-relevant trials, along with a reporting guideline for transparent reporting. In this study, we provide a descriptive assessment of health-equity considerations in 200 randomly sampled equity-relevant trials. METHODS: We developed a search strategy to identify health-equity-relevant trials published between 2013 and 2015. We randomly sorted the 4316 records identified by the search and screened studies until 100 individually randomized (RCTs) and 100 cluster randomized controlled trials (CRTs) were identified. We developed and pilot-tested a data extraction form based on our initial work, to inform the development of our reporting guideline for equity-relevant randomized trials. RESULTS: In total, 39 trials (20%) were conducted in a low- and middle-income country and 157 trials (79%) in a high-income country focused on socially disadvantaged populations (78% CRTs, 79% RCTs). Seventy-four trials (37%) reported a subgroup analysis across a population characteristic associated with disadvantage (25% CRT, 49% RCTs), with 19% of included studies reporting subgroup analyses across sex, 9% across race/ethnicity/culture, and 4% across socioeconomic status. No subgroup analyses were reported for place of residence, occupation, religion, education, or social capital. One hundred and forty-one trials (71%) discussed the applicability of their results to one or more socially disadvantaged populations (68% of CRT, 73% of RCT). DISCUSSION: In this set of trials, selected for their relevance to health equity, data that were disaggregated for socially disadvantaged populations were rarely reported. We found that even when the data are available, opportunities to analyze health-equity considerations are frequently missed. The recently published equity extension of the Consolidated Reporting Standards for Randomized Trials (CONSORT-Equity) may help improve delineation of hypotheses related to socially disadvantaged populations, and transparency and completeness of reporting of health-equity considerations in RCTs. This study can serve as a baseline assessment of the reporting of equity considerations.

Taking an integrated knowledge translation approach in research to develop the CONSORT-Equity 2017 reporting guideline: an observational study.

OBJECTIVE: We describe the use of an integrated knowledge translation (KT) approach in the development of the CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials extension for equity ('CONSORT-Equity 2017'), and advisory board-research team members' ('the team') perceptions of the integrated KT process. DESIGN: This is an observational study to describe team processes and experience with a structured integrated KT approach to develop CONSORT-Equity 2017. Participant observation to describe team processes and a survey were used with the 38 team members. SETTING: Use of the CONSORT health research reporting guideline contributes to an evidence base for health systems decision-making, and CONSORT-Equity 2017 may improve reporting about health equity-relevant evidence. An integrated KT research approach engages knowledge users (those for whom the research is meant to be useful) with researchers to co-develop research evidence and is more likely to produce findings that are applied in practice or policy. PARTICIPANTS: Researchers adopted an integrated KT approach and invited knowledge users to form a team. RESULTS: An integrated KT approach was used in the development of CONSORT-Equity 2017 and structured replicable steps. The process for co-developing the reporting guideline involved two stages: (1) establishing guiding features for co-development and (2) research actions that supported the co-development of the reporting guideline. Stage 1 consisted of four steps: finding common ground, forming an advisory board, committing to ethical guidance and clarifying theoretical research assumptions. Bound by the stage 1 guiding features of an integrated KT approach, stage 2 consisted of five steps during which studies for consensus-based reporting guidelines were conducted. Of 38 team members, 25 (67.5%) completed a survey about their perceptions of the integrated KT approach. CONCLUSIONS: An integrated KT approach can be used to engage a team to co-develop reporting guidelines. Further study is needed to understand the use of an integrated KT approach in the development of reporting guidelines.

Engaging knowledge users in development of the CONSORT-Equity 2017 reporting guideline: a qualitative study using in-depth interviews.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials ("randomized trials") can provide evidence to assess the equity impact of an intervention. Decision makers need to know about equity impacts of healthcare interventions so that people get healthcare that is best for them. To better understand the equity impacts of healthcare interventions, a range of people who were potentially the ultimate users of research results were involved in a six-phase project to extend the CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials Statement for health equity ("CONSORT-Equity 2017"). We identified these "knowledge users" as: patients and healthcare researchers, decision makers and providers. This paper reports on one project phase: specifically, a qualitative study designed to integrate the expertise of knowledge users. The experiences and perspectives of knowledge users provided many insights about the reporting of health equity issues in randomized trials. This paper describes key informant interviews with knowledge users that contribute to a better understanding of the effects of an intervention on health equity. Additionally, the paper shows how these insights were used to develop CONSORT-Equity 2017. METHODS: A qualitative study that used the framework analysis method was conducted in collaboration with an international study executive and advisory board team. In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of key informants who: consider the research ethics of, fund, conduct, participate in, publish, or use research evidence generated in randomized trials. Transcripts were coded and analyzed using the seven-stage framework analysis method, and data reported to reflect knowledge user suggestions to develop CONSORT-Equity 2017. RESULTS: Thirteen key informants, of which three were patients, chose to participate in interviews. Seven themes emerged: "Differentiate the type of trial", "Prompts for health equity", "Ethics matter", "Describe unique research strategies", "Clarity of reporting", "Implications of equity for sampling and analysis", "Think beyond the immediate trial". The interviews provided direction for the extension of 16 CONSORT-Equity 2017 items. CONCLUSIONS: Key informant interviews were used to identify new concepts that were not generated in our other studies and to develop CONSORT-Equity 2017. We encourage the use of key informant interviews in guideline development to obtain and include the real-life expertise of knowledge users.

Sex/gender reporting and analysis in Campbell and Cochrane systematic reviews: a cross-sectional methods study.

BACKGROUND: The importance of sex and gender considerations in research is being increasingly recognized. Evidence indicates that sex and gender can influence intervention effectiveness. We assessed the extent to which sex/gender is reported and analyzed in Campbell and Cochrane systematic reviews. METHODS: We screened all the systematic reviews in the Campbell Library (n = 137) and a sample of systematic reviews from 2016 to 2017 in the Cochrane Library (n = 674). We documented the frequency of sex/gender terms used in each section of the reviews. RESULTS: We excluded 5 Cochrane reviews because they were withdrawn or published and updated within the same time period as well as 4 Campbell reviews and 114 Cochrane reviews which only included studies focused on a single sex. Our analysis includes 133 Campbell reviews and 555 Cochrane reviews. We assessed reporting of sex/gender considerations for each section of the systematic review (Abstract, Background, Methods, Results, Discussion). In the methods section, 83% of Cochrane reviews (95% CI 80-86%) and 51% of Campbell reviews (95% CI 42-59%) reported on sex/gender. In the results section, less than 30% of reviews reported on sex/gender. Of these, 37% (95% CI 29-45%) of Campbell and 75% (95% CI 68-82%) of Cochrane reviews provided a descriptive report of sex/gender and 63% (95% CI 55-71%) of Campbell reviews and 25% (95% CI 18-32%) of Cochrane reviews reported analytic approaches for exploring sex/gender, such as subgroup analyses, exploring heterogeneity, or presenting disaggregated data by sex/gender. CONCLUSION: Our study indicates that sex/gender reporting in Campbell and Cochrane reviews is inadequate.

Do evidence summaries increase health policy-makers' use of evidence from systematic reviews? A systematic review.

This review summarizes the evidence from six randomized controlled trials that judged the effectiveness of systematic review summaries on policymakers' decision making, or the most effective ways to present evidence summaries to increase policymakers' use of the evidence. This review included six randomized controlled studies. A randomized controlled study is one in which the participants are divided randomly (by chance) into separate groups to compare different treatments or other interventions. This method of dividing people into groups means that the groups will be similar and that the effects of the treatments they receive will be compared more fairly. At the time the study is done, it is not known which treatment is the better one. The researchers who did these studies invited people from Europe, North America, South America, Africa, and Asia to take part in them. Two studies looked at "policy briefs," one study looked at an "evidence summary," two looked at a "summary of findings table," and one compared a "summary of findings table" to an evidence summary. None of these studies looked at how policymakers directly used evidence from systematic reviews in their decision making, but two studies found that there was little to no difference in how they used the summaries. The studies relied on reports from decision makers. These studies included questions such as, "Is this summary easy to understand?" Some of the studies looked at users' knowledge, understanding, beliefs, or how credible (trustworthy) they believed the summaries to be. There was little to no difference in the studies that looked at these outcomes. Study participants rated the graded entry format higher for usability than the full systematic review. The graded entry format allows the reader to select how much information they want to read. The study participants felt that all evidence summary formats were easier to understand than full systematic reviews. Plain language summary: Policy briefs make systematic reviews easier to understand but little evidence of impact on use of study findings: It is likely that evidence summaries are easier to understand than complete systematic reviews. Whether these summaries increase the use of evidence from systematic reviews in policymaking is not clear.What is this review about?: Systematic reviews are long and technical documents that may be hard for policymakers to use when making decisions. Evidence summaries are short documents that describe research findings in systematic reviews. These summaries may simplify the use of systematic reviews.Other names for evidence reviews are policy briefs, evidence briefs, summaries of findings, or plain language summaries. The goal of this review was to learn whether evidence summaries help policymakers use evidence from systematic reviews. This review also aimed to identify the best ways to present the evidence summary to increase the use of evidence.What are the main findings of this review?: This review included six randomized controlled studies. A randomized controlled study is one in which the participants are divided randomly (by chance) into separate groups to compare different treatments or other interventions. This method of dividing people into groups means that the groups will be similar and that the effects of the treatments they receive will be compared more fairly. At the time the study is done, it is not known which treatment is the better one.The researchers who did these studies invited people from Europe, North America, South America, Africa, and Asia to take part in them. Two studies looked at "policy briefs," one study looked at an "evidence summary," two looked at a "summary of findings table," and one compared a "summary of findings table" to an evidence summary.None of these studies looked at how policymakers directly used evidence from systematic reviews in their decision making, but two studies found that there was little to no difference in how they used the summaries. The studies relied on reports from decision makers. These studies included questions such as, "Is this summary easy to understand?"Some of the studies looked at users' knowledge, understanding, beliefs, or how credible (trustworthy) they believed the summaries to be. There was little to no difference in the studies that looked at these outcomes. Study participants rated the graded entry format higher for usability than the full systematic review. The graded entry format allows the reader to select how much information they want to read.. The study participants felt that all evidence summary formats were easier to understand than full systematic reviews.What do the findings of this review mean?: Our review suggests that evidence summaries help policymakers to better understand the findings presented in systematic reviews. In short, evidence summaries should be developed to make it easier for policymakers to understand the evidence presented in systematic reviews. However, right now there is very little evidence on the best way to present systematic review evidence to policymakers.How up to date is this review?: The authors of this review searched for studies through June 2016. Executive summary/Abstract: Background: Systematic reviews are important for decision makers. They offer many potential benefits but are often written in technical language, are too long, and do not contain contextual details which makes them hard to use for decision-making. Strategies to promote the use of evidence to decision makers are required, and evidence summaries have been suggested as a facilitator. Evidence summaries include policy briefs, briefing papers, briefing notes, evidence briefs, abstracts, summary of findings tables, and plain language summaries. There are many organizations developing and disseminating systematic review evidence summaries for different populations or subsets of decision makers. However, evidence on the usefulness and effectiveness of systematic review summaries is lacking. We present an overview of the available evidence on systematic review evidence summaries.Objectives: This systematic review aimed to 1) assess the effectiveness of evidence summaries on policy-makers' use of the evidence and 2) identify the most effective summary components for increasing policy-makers' use of the evidence.Search methods: We searched several online databases (Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Global Health Library, Popline, Africa-wide, Public Affairs Information Services, Worldwide Political Science Abstracts, Web of Science, and DfiD), websites of research groups and organizations which produce evidence summaries, and reference lists of included summaries and related systematic reviews. These databases were searched in March-April, 2016.Selection criteria: Eligible studies included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised controlled trials (NRCTs), controlled before-after (CBA) studies, and interrupted time series (ITS) studies. We included studies of policymakers at all levels as well as health system managers. We included studies examining any type of "evidence summary", "policy brief", or other product derived from systematic reviews that presented evidence in a summarized form. These interventions could be compared to active comparators (e.g. other summary formats) or no intervention.The primary outcomes were: 1) use of systematic review summaries decision-making (e.g. self-reported use of the evidence in policy-making, decision-making) and 2) policymaker understanding, knowledge, and/or beliefs (e.g. changes in knowledge scores about the topic included in the summary). We also assessed perceived relevance, credibility, usefulness, understandability, and desirability (e.g. format) of the summaries.Results: Our database search combined with our grey literature search yielded 10,113 references after removal of duplicates. From these, 54 were reviewed in full text and we included 6 studies (reported in 7 papers, 1661 participants) as well as protocols from 2 ongoing studies. Two studies assessed the use of evidence summaries in decision-making and found little to no difference in effect. There was also little to no difference in effect for knowledge, understanding or beliefs (4 studies) and perceived usefulness or usability (3 studies). Summary of Findings tables and graded entry summaries were perceived as slightly easier to understand compared to complete systematic reviews. Two studies assessed formatting changes and found that for Summary of Findings tables, certain elements, such as reporting study event rates and absolute differences were preferred as well as avoiding the use of footnotes. No studies assessed adverse effects. The risks of bias in these studies were mainly assessed as unclear or low however, two studies were assessed as high risk of bias for incomplete outcome data due to very high rates of attrition.Authors' conclusions: Evidence summaries may be easier to understand than complete systematic reviews. However, their ability to increase the use of systematic review evidence in policymaking is unclear.

Do evidence summaries increase health policy-makers use of evidence from systematic reviews?

Systematic reviews are important for decision makers. They offer many potential benefits but are often written in technical language, are too long, and do not contain contextual details which makes them hard to use for decision-making. Strategies to promote the use of evidence to decision makers are required, and evidence summaries have been suggested as a facilitator. Evidence summaries include policy briefs, briefing papers, briefing notes, evidence briefs, abstracts, summary of findings tables, and plain language summaries. There are many organizations developing and disseminating systematic review evidence summaries for different populations or subsets of decision makers. However, evidence on the usefulness and effectiveness of systematic review summaries is lacking. We present an overview of the available evidence on systematic review evidence summaries.

Considerations and guidance in designing equity-relevant clinical trials.

Health research has documented disparities in health and health outcomes within and between populations. When these disparities are unfair and avoidable they may be referred to as health inequities. Few trials attend to factors related to health inequities, and there is limited understanding about how to build consideration of health inequities into trials. Due consideration of health inequities is important to inform the design, conduct and reporting of trials so that research can build evidence to more effectively address health inequities and importantly, ensure that inequities are not aggravated. In this paper, we discuss approaches to integrating health equity-considerations in randomized trials by using the PROGRESS Plus framework (Place of residence, Race/ethnicity/culture/language, Occupation, Gender, Religion, Education, Socio-economic status, Social capital and "Plus" that includes other context specific factors) and cover: (i) formulation of research questions, (ii) two specific scenarios relevant to trials about health equity and (iii) describe how the PROGRESS Plus characteristics may influence trial design, conduct and analyses. This guidance is intended to support trialists designing equity-relevant trials and lead to better design, conduct, analyses and reporting, by addressing two main issues: how to avoid aggravating inequity among research participants and how to produce information that is useful to decision-makers who are concerned with health inequities.

The effectiveness of evidence summaries on health policymakers and health system managers use of evidence from systematic reviews: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews are important for decision makers. They offer many potential benefits but are often written in technical language, are too long, and do not contain contextual details which make them hard to use for decision-making. There are many organizations that develop and disseminate derivative products, such as evidence summaries, from systematic reviews for different populations or subsets of decision makers. This systematic review aimed to (1) assess the effectiveness of evidence summaries on policymakers' use of the evidence and (2) identify the most effective summary components for increasing policymakers' use of the evidence. We present an overview of the available evidence on systematic review derivative products. METHODS: We included studies of policymakers at all levels as well as health system managers. We included studies examining any type of "evidence summary," "policy brief," or other products derived from systematic reviews that presented evidence in a summarized form. The primary outcomes were the (1) use of systematic review summaries in decision-making (e.g., self-reported use of the evidence in policymaking and decision-making) and (2) policymakers' understanding, knowledge, and/or beliefs (e.g., changes in knowledge scores about the topic included in the summary). We also assessed perceived relevance, credibility, usefulness, understandability, and desirability (e.g., format) of the summaries. RESULTS: Our database search combined with our gray literature search yielded 10,113 references after removal of duplicates. From these, 54 were reviewed in full text, and we included six studies (reported in seven papers) as well as protocols from two ongoing studies. Two studies assessed the use of evidence summaries in decision-making and found little to no difference in effect. There was also little to no difference in effect for knowledge, understanding or beliefs (four studies), and perceived usefulness or usability (three studies). Summary of findings tables and graded entry summaries were perceived as slightly easier to understand compared to complete systematic reviews. Two studies assessed formatting changes and found that for summary of findings tables, certain elements, such as reporting study event rates and absolute differences, were preferred as well as avoiding the use of footnotes. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence summaries are likely easier to understand than complete systematic reviews. However, their ability to increase the use of systematic review evidence in policymaking is unclear. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol was published in the journal Systematic Reviews (2015;4:122).

Translating Evidence to Facilitate Shared Decision Making: Development and Usability of a Consult Decision Aid Prototype.

AIM: The purpose of this study was to translate evidence from Cochrane Reviews into a format that can be used to facilitate shared decision making during the consultation, namely patient decision aids. METHODS: A systematic development process (a) established a stakeholder committee; (b) developed a prototype according to the International Patient Decision Aid Standards; (c) applied the prototype to a Cochrane Review and used an interview-guided survey to evaluate acceptability/usability; (d) created 12 consult decision aids; and (e) used a Delphi process to reach consensus on considerations for creating a consult decision aid. RESULTS: The 1-page prototype includes (a) a title specifying the decision; (b) information on the health condition, options, benefits/harms with probabilities; (c) an explicit values clarification exercise; and (d) questions to screen for decisional conflict. Hyperlinks provide additional information on definitions, probabilities presented graphically, and references. Fourteen Cochrane Consumer Network members and Cochrane Editorial Unit staff participated. Thirteen reported that it would help patient/clinician discussions and were willing to use and/or recommend it. Seven indicated the right amount of information, six not enough, and one too much. Changes to the prototype were more links to definitions, more white space, and details on GRADE evidence ratings. Creating 12 consult decision aids took about 4 h each. We identified ten considerations when selecting Cochrane Reviews for creating consult decision aids. CONCLUSIONS: Using a systematic process, we developed a consult decision aid prototype to be populated with evidence from Cochrane Reviews. It was acceptable and easy to apply. Future studies will evaluate implementation of consult decision aids.

Adult-Onset Type 1 Diabetes: A Qualitative Study of Decision-Making Needs.

INTRODUCTION: Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune disease resulting from insulin deficiency and must be carefully managed to prevent serious health complications. Diabetes education and management strategies usually focus on meeting the decision-making needs of children and their families, but little is known about the decisional needs of people with adult-onset type 1 diabetes. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore the diabetes-related decision-making needs of people diagnosed with adult-onset type 1 diabetes. METHODS: An interpretive descriptive qualitative study was conducted. Participants who self-identified as having adult-onset type 1 diabetes were interviewed using a semistructured interview guide. Transcripts were coded to identify needs, supports and barriers using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Participating in the study were 8 adults (2 men, 6 women), ages 33 to 57, with type 1 diabetes for durations of 1 to 20 or more years. Their decision-making needs are summarized in 6 broad themes: 1) people diagnosed with type 1 diabetes are launched into a process of decision-making; 2) being diagnosed with type 1 diabetes means you will always have to make decisions; 3) knowledge is crucial; 4) personal preferences matter; 5) support is critical for decisions about self-care in type 1 diabetes; 6) living with type 1 diabetes means making very individualized decisions about daily life. CONCLUSIONS: The findings describe the sudden and ubiquitous nature of type 1 diabetes decision-making and the need to tailor approaches for making care decisions in type 1 diabetes. People diagnosed with adult-onset type 1 diabetes require access to reliable information, support and opportunities for participation in decision-making.