Abstract:
Objective
Designing salient digital health interventions requires theoretically‐based formative research and user‐center design with stakeholder input throughout impacting content and technology design. mychoice is a theory‐based, stakeholder‐guided digital health tool to improve clinical trial informed decision making, particularly among African American patients.
Methods
mychoice was developed by (1) mixed‐methods formative research, including in‐depth interviews (n=16) and surveys (N=41) with African American cancer patients who had and had not participated in a clinical trial; (2) e‐tool design process including perceptual mapping analysis to prioritize messages, multi‐disciplinary team and stakeholder input; and (3) iterative production and user testing.
Results
Interview findings showed that clinical trial participants expressed more positive attributes about and an openness to consider clinical trials, even though they expressed common concerns such as “fear of being a guinea pig”. Survey results indicated that clinical trial participants expressed they had been given information to make the decision (P = .001), while those who had not more frequently reported (P > .001) that no one had talked to them about trials. Perceptual mapping indicated that values such as “helping find a cure” or “value to society” had little resonance to those who had not participated, providing message strategy for prototype development. User testing of the tool resulted in modifications; the most significant was the adaptation to a multi‐cultural version.
Conclusions
With the promise of digital health interventions, theory‐guided, user‐centered and best practice development is critical and mychoice serves as an example of the application of these principles.
Fleisher L, Bass SB, Shwarz M, et al. Using theory and user‐centered design in digital health: The development of the mychoice communication tool to prepare patients and improve informed decision making regarding clinical trial participation. Psycho‐Oncology. 2020;29(1):114-122. doi:10.1002/pon.5254