Clarifying Values: An Updated and Expanded Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patient decision aids should help people make evidence-informed decisions aligned with their values. There is limited guidance about how to achieve such alignment. PURPOSE: To describe the range of values clarification methods available to patient decision aid developers, synthesize evidence regarding their relative merits, and foster collection of evidence by offering researchers a proposed set of outcomes to report when evaluating the effects of values clarification methods. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL. STUDY SELECTION: We included articles that described randomized trials of 1 or more explicit values clarification methods. From 30,648 records screened, we identified 33 articles describing trials of 43 values clarification methods. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent reviewers extracted details about each values clarification method and its evaluation. DATA SYNTHESIS: Compared to control conditions or to implicit values clarification methods, explicit values clarification methods decreased the frequency of values-incongruent choices (risk difference, -0.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.06 to -0.02; P < 0.001) and decisional conflict (standardized mean difference, -0.20; 95% CI, -0.29 to -0.11; P < 0.001). Multicriteria decision analysis led to more values-congruent decisions than other values clarification methods (χ2 = 9.25, P = 0.01). There were no differences between different values clarification methods regarding decisional conflict (χ2 = 6.08, P = 0.05). LIMITATIONS: Some meta-analyses had high heterogeneity. We grouped values clarification methods into broad categories. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence suggests patient decision aids should include an explicit values clarification method. Developers may wish to specifically consider multicriteria decision analysis. Future evaluations of values clarification methods should report their effects on decisional conflict, decisions made, values congruence, and decisional regret.

An 11-Item Measure of User- and Human-Centered Design for Personal Health Tools (UCD-11): Development and Validation.

BACKGROUND: Researchers developing personal health tools employ a range of approaches to involve prospective users in design and development. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper was to develop a validated measure of the human- or user-centeredness of design and development processes for personal health tools. METHODS: We conducted a psychometric analysis of data from a previous systematic review of the design and development processes of 348 personal health tools. Using a conceptual framework of user-centered design, our team of patients, caregivers, health professionals, tool developers, and researchers analyzed how specific practices in tool design and development might be combined and used as a measure. We prioritized variables according to their importance within the conceptual framework and validated the resultant measure using principal component analysis with Varimax rotation, classical item analysis, and confirmatory factor analysis. RESULTS: We retained 11 items in a 3-factor structure explaining 68% of the variance in the data. The Cronbach alpha was .72. Confirmatory factor analysis supported our hypothesis of a latent construct of user-centeredness. Items were whether or not: (1) patient, family, caregiver, or surrogate users were involved in the steps that help tool developers understand users or (2) develop a prototype, (3) asked their opinions, (4) observed using the tool or (5) involved in steps intended to evaluate the tool, (6) the process had 3 or more iterative cycles, (7) changes between cycles were explicitly reported, (8) health professionals were asked their opinion and (9) consulted before the first prototype was developed or (10) between initial and final prototypes, and (11) a panel of other experts was involved. CONCLUSIONS: The User-Centered Design 11-item measure (UCD-11) may be used to quantitatively document the user/human-centeredness of design and development processes of patient-centered tools. By building an evidence base about such processes, we can help ensure that tools are adapted to people who will use them, rather than requiring people to adapt to tools.

User Involvement in the Design and Development of Patient Decision Aids and Other Personal Health Tools: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: When designing and developing patient decision aids, guidelines recommend involving patients and stakeholders. There are myriad ways to do this. We aimed to describe how such involvement occurs by synthesizing reports of patient decision aid design and development within a user-centered design framework and to provide context by synthesizing reports of user-centered design applied to other personal health tools. METHODS: We included articles describing at least one development step of 1) a patient decision aid, 2) user- or human-centered design of another personal health tool, or 3) evaluation of these. We organized data within a user-centered design framework comprising 3 elements in iterative cycles: understanding users, developing/refining prototype, and observing users. RESULTS: We included 607 articles describing 325 patient decision aid projects and 65 other personal health tool projects. Fifty percent of patient decision aid projects reported involving users in at least 1 step for understanding users, 35% in at least 1 step for developing/refining the prototype, and 84% in at least 1 step for observing users' interaction with the prototype. In comparison, other personal health tool projects reported 91%, 49%, and 92%, respectively. A total of 74% of patient decision aid projects and 92% of other personal health tool projects reported iterative processes, both with a median of 3 iterative cycles. Preliminary evaluations such as usability or feasibility testing were reported in 66% of patient decision aid projects and 89% of other personal health tool projects. CONCLUSIONS: By synthesizing design and development practices, we offer evidence-based portraits of user involvement. Those wishing to further align patient decision aid design and development with user-centered design methods could involve users earlier, design and develop iteratively, and report processes in greater detail.

Patterns of Intrahemispheric EEG Asymmetry in Insomnia Sufferers: An Exploratory Study.

Individuals with insomnia present unique patterns of electroencephalographic (EEG) asymmetry between homologous regions of each brain hemisphere, yet few studies have assessed asymmetry within the same hemisphere. Increase in intrahemispheric asymmetry during rapid eye movement (REM) sleep in good sleepers (GS) and disruption of REM sleep in insomnia sufferers (INS) both point out that this activity may be involved in the pathology of insomnia. The objective of the present exploratory study was to evaluate and quantify patterns of fronto-central, fronto-parietal, fronto-occipital, centro-parietal, centro-occipital and parieto-occipital intrahemispheric asymmetry in GS and INS, and to assess their association with sleep-wake misperception, daytime anxiety and depressive symptoms, as well as insomnia severity. This paper provides secondary analysis of standard EEG recorded in 43 INS and 19 GS for three nights in a sleep laboratory. Asymmetry measures were based on EEG power spectral analysis within 0.3-60 Hz computed between pairs of regions at frontal, central, parietal and occipital derivations. Repeated-measures ANOVAs were performed to assess group differences. Exploratory correlations were then performed on asymmetry and sleep-wake misperception, as well as self-reported daytime anxiety and depressive symptoms, and insomnia severity. INS presented increased delta and theta F3/P3 asymmetry during REM sleep compared with GS, positively associated with depressive and insomnia complaints. INS also exhibited decreased centro-occipital (C3/O1, C4/O2) and parieto-occipital (P3-O1, P4/O2) theta asymmetry during REM. These findings suggest that INS present specific patterns of intrahemispheric asymmetry, partially related to their clinical symptoms. Future studies may investigate the extent to which asymmetry is related to sleep-wake misperception or memory impairments.

Insomnia in personality disorders and substance use disorders.

The relationship between certain personality disorders (PDs) and insomnia has been the object of few studies in recent years. Even though it is not indicated to use polysomnography to diagnose insomnia, objective measures have shown sleep abnormalities in individuals with a personality disorder and insomnia. Interestingly, there is increasing evidence that emotion dysregulation is involved in a mutually aggravating relationship between Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) and insomnia. While BPD traits are highly associated with suicide ideation and attempts, these behaviors could be potentiated or enhanced in individuals presenting sleep disturbances. Because BPD and other mental disorders are often linked with the use of medication or other substances, it is also important to review the association between substance use disorders (SUD) and insomnia. SUD can disrupt sleep and foster insomnia, which in turn might increase motivation to use substances. Insomnia has also been shown to precede (i.e., predict) SUD, and can be present during withdrawal as well. These results highlight the need to assess and treat insomnia when working with patients who present a PD or SUD.

Interventions to help people understand community immunity: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Herd immunity, or community immunity, occurs when susceptible people in a population are indirectly protected from infection thanks to the pervasiveness of immunity within the population. In this study, we aimed to systematically review interventions designed to communicate what community immunity is and how community immunity works to members of the general public. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science for peer-reviewed articles describing interventions with or without evaluations. We then conducted web searches with Google to identify interventions lacking associated publications. We extracted data about the target population of the interventions, the interventions themselves (e.g., did they describe what community immunity is, and how it works), any effects of evaluated interventions, and synthesized data narratively. RESULTS: We identified 32 interventions: 11 interventions described in peer-reviewed articles and 21 interventions without associated articles. Of the 32 interventions, 5 described what community immunity is, 6 described the mechanisms of how community immunity occurs and 21 described both. Fourteen of the 32 addressed infectious diseases in general while the other 13 addressed one or more specific diseases. Twelve of the 32 interventions used videos, 7 used interactive simulations and 6 used questionnaires. Ten of the 11 peer-reviewed articles described studies evaluating at least one effect of the interventions. Within these 10, 4/4 reported increased knowledge, 3/5 reported shifts of attitudes in favour of vaccination, 2/5 reported increased intentions to vaccinate. Of 3 studies evaluating interventions specifically about community immunity, 2 reported increased intentions to vaccinate. CONCLUSIONS: A compelling benefit of vaccination exists at the population level in the form of community immunity. Identifying ways to optimally communicate about this benefit may be important, because some evidence suggests that effective communication about community immunity can increase vaccination intentions.

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

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.

"You Get Reminded You're a Sick Person": Personal Data Tracking and Patients With Multiple Chronic Conditions.

BACKGROUND: Consumer health information technologies (HIT) that encourage self-tracking, such as diet and fitness tracking apps and disease journals, are attracting widespread interest among technology-oriented consumers (such as "quantified self" advocates), entrepreneurs, and the health care industry. Such electronic technologies could potentially benefit the growing population of patients with multiple chronic conditions (MCC). However, MCC is predominantly a condition of the elderly and disproportionately affects the less affluent, so it also seems possible that the barriers to use of consumer HIT would be particularly severe for this patient population. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to explore the perspectives of individuals with MCC using a semistructured interview study. Our research questions were (1) How do individuals with MCC track their own health and medical data? and (2) How do patients and providers perceive and use patient-tracked data? METHODS: We used semistructured interviews with patients with multiple chronic diseases and providers with experience caring for such patients, as well as participation in a diabetes education group to triangulate emerging themes. Data were analyzed using grounded theory and thematic analysis. Recruitment and analysis took place iteratively until thematic saturation was reached. RESULTS: Interviews were conducted with 22 patients and 7 health care providers. The patients had an average of 3.5 chronic conditions, including type 2 diabetes, heart disease, chronic pain, and depression, and had regular relationships with an average of 5 providers. Four major themes arose from the interviews: (1) tracking this data feels like work for many patients, (2) personal medical data for individuals with chronic conditions are not simply objective facts, but instead provoke strong positive and negative emotions, value judgments, and diverse interpretations, (3) patients track for different purposes, ranging from sense-making to self-management to reporting to the doctor, and (4) patients often notice that physicians trust technologically measured data such as lab reports over patients' self-tracked data. CONCLUSIONS: Developers of consumer health information technologies for data tracking (such as diet and exercise apps or blood glucose logs) often assume patients have unlimited enthusiasm for tracking their own health data via technology. However, our findings potentially explain relatively low adoption of consumer HIT, as they suggest that patients with multiple chronic illnesses consider it work to track their own data, that the data can be emotionally charged, and that they may perceive that providers do not welcome it. Similar themes have been found in some individual chronic diseases but appeared more complex because patients often encountered "illness work" connected to multiple diseases simultaneously and frequently faced additional challenges from aging or difficult comorbidities such as chronic pain, depression, and anxiety. We suggest that to make a public health impact, consumer HIT developers should engage creatively with these pragmatic and emotional issues to reach an audience that is broader than technologically sophisticated early adopters. Novel technologies are likely to be successful only if they clearly reduce patient inconvenience and burden, helping them to accomplish their "illness work" more efficiently and effectively.

The invisible work of personal health information management among people with multiple chronic conditions: qualitative interview study among patients and providers.

BACKGROUND: A critical problem for patients with chronic conditions who see multiple health care providers is incomplete or inaccurate information, which can contribute to lack of care coordination, low quality of care, and medical errors. OBJECTIVE: As part of a larger project on applications of consumer health information technology (HIT) and barriers to its use, we conducted a semistructured interview study with patients with multiple chronic conditions (MCC) with the objective of exploring their role in managing their personal health information. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with patients and providers. Patients were eligible if they had multiple chronic conditions and were in regular care with one of two medical organizations in New York City; health care providers were eligible if they had experience caring for patients with multiple chronic conditions. Analysis was conducted from a grounded theory perspective, and recruitment was concluded when saturation was achieved. RESULTS: A total of 22 patients and 7 providers were interviewed; patients had an average of 3.5 (SD 1.5) chronic conditions and reported having regular relationships with an average of 5 providers. Four major themes arose: (1) Responsibility for managing medical information: some patients perceived information management and sharing as the responsibility of health care providers; others­particularly those who had had bad experiences in the past­took primary responsibility for information sharing; (2) What information should be shared: although privacy concerns did influence some patients' perceptions of sharing of medical data, decisions about what to share were also heavily influenced by their understanding of health and disease and by the degree to which they understood the health care system; (3) Methods and tools varied: those patients who did take an active role in managing their records used a variety of electronic tools, paper tools, and memory; and (4) Information management as invisible work: managing transfers of medical information to solve problems was a tremendous amount of work that was largely unrecognized by the medical establishment. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that personal health information management should be recognized as an additional burden that MCC places upon patients. Effective structural solutions for information sharing, whether institutional ones such as care management or technological ones such as electronic health information exchange, are likely not only to improve the quality of information shared but reduce the burden on patients already weighed down by MCC.

Risk Communication, Values Clarification, and Vaccination Decisions.

Many health-related decisions require choosing between two options, each with risks and benefits. When presented with such tradeoffs, people often make choices that fail to align with scientific evidence or with their own values. This study tested whether risk communication and values clarification methods could help parents and guardians make evidence-based, values-congruent decisions about children's influenza vaccinations. In 2013-2014 we conducted an online 2×2 factorial experiment in which a diverse sample of U.S. parents and guardians (n = 407) were randomly assigned to view either standard information about influenza vaccines or risk communication using absolute and incremental risk formats. Participants were then either presented or not presented with an interactive values clarification interface with constrained sliders and dynamic visual feedback. Participants randomized to the risk communication condition combined with the values clarification interface were more likely to indicate intentions to vaccinate (ß = 2.10, t(399) = 2.63, p < 0.01). The effect was particularly notable among participants who had previously demonstrated less interest in having their children vaccinated against influenza (ß = -2.14, t(399) = -2.06, p < 0.05). When assessing vaccination status reported by participants who agreed to participate in a follow-up study six months later (n = 116), vaccination intentions significantly predicted vaccination status (OR = 1.66, 95%CI (1.13, 2.44), p < 0.05) and rates of informed choice (OR = 1.51, 95%CI (1.07, 2.13), p < 0.012), although there were no direct effects of experimental factors on vaccination rates. Qualitative analysis suggested that logistical barriers impeded immunization rates. Risk communication and values clarification methods may contribute to increased vaccination intentions, which may, in turn, predict vaccination status if logistical barriers are also addressed.

User-centered design and the development of patient decision aids: protocol for a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Providing patient-centered care requires that patients partner in their personal health-care decisions to the full extent desired. Patient decision aids facilitate processes of shared decision-making between patients and their clinicians by presenting relevant scientific information in balanced, understandable ways, helping clarify patients' goals, and guiding decision-making processes. Although international standards stipulate that patients and clinicians should be involved in decision aid development, little is known about how such involvement currently occurs, let alone best practices. This systematic review consisting of three interlinked subreviews seeks to describe current practices of user involvement in the development of patient decision aids, compare these to practices of user-centered design, and identify promising strategies. METHODS/DESIGN: A research team that includes patient and clinician representatives, decision aid developers, and systematic review method experts will guide this review according to the Cochrane Handbook and PRISMA reporting guidelines. A medical librarian will hand search key references and use a peer-reviewed search strategy to search MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, the ACM library, IEEE Xplore, and Google Scholar. We will identify articles across all languages and years describing the development or evaluation of a patient decision aid, or the application of user-centered design or human-centered design to tools intended for patient use. Two independent reviewers will assess article eligibility and extract data into a matrix using a structured pilot-tested form based on a conceptual framework of user-centered design. We will synthesize evidence to describe how research teams have included users in their development process and compare these practices to user-centered design methods. If data permit, we will develop a measure of the user-centeredness of development processes and identify practices that are likely to be optimal. DISCUSSION: This systematic review will provide evidence of current practices to inform approaches for involving patients and other stakeholders in the development of patient decision aids. We anticipate that the results will help move towards the establishment of best practices for the development of patient-centered tools and, in turn, help improve the experiences of people who face difficult health decisions. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42014013241.