Search

Objective: Women of low socioeconomic status (SES) diagnosed with early stage breast cancer experience decision-making, treatment and outcome disparities. Evidence suggests that decision aids can benefit underserved patients, when tailored to their needs. Our aim was to develop and test the usability, acceptability and accessibility of a pictorial encounter decision aid targeted at women of low SES diagnosed with early stage breast cancer., Design: Community-based participatory research (CBPR) using think-aloud protocols (phases 1 and 2) and semistructured interviews (phase 3)., Setting: Underserved community settings (eg, knitting groups, bingo halls, senior centres) and breast clinics., Participants: In phase 1, we recruited a convenience sample of clinicians and academics. In phase 2, we targeted women over 40 years of age, of low SES, regardless of breast cancer history, and in phase 3, women of low SES, recently diagnosed with breast cancer., Intervention: The pictorial encounter decision aid was derived from an evidence-based table comparing treatment options for breast cancer (http://www.optiongrid.org)., Outcome Measures: We assessed the usability, acceptability and accessibility of the pictorial decision aid prototypes using the think-aloud protocol and semistructured interviews., Results: After initial testing of the first prototype with 18 academics and health professionals, new versions were developed and tested with 53 lay individuals in community settings. Usability was high. In response to feedback indicating that the use of cartoon characters was considered insensitive, a picture-only version was developed and tested with 23 lay people in phase 2, and 10 target users in phase 3., Conclusions and Relevance: Using CBPR methods and iterative user testing cycles improved usability and accessibility, and led to the development of the Picture Option Grid, entirely guided by multiple stakeholder feedback. All women of low SES recently diagnosed with early stage breast cancer found the Picture Option Grid usable, acceptable and accessible., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

Objective: To examine the motivations of patients recording clinical encounters, covertly or otherwise, and why some do not wish to record encounters., Design: Mixed-methods analysis of survey data and nested semistructured interviews., Setting: Survey to UK audience, using social media and radio broadcast., Participants: 168 survey respondents, of whom 161 were 18 years of age or older (130 completions). Of the 56 participants who agreed to be contacted, we included data from 17 interviews., Results: 19 (15%) respondents indicated having secretly recorded a clinical encounter and 14 (11%) were aware of someone who had secretly recorded a clinical encounter. 45 (35%) said they would consider recording secretly and 44 (34%) said they would record after asking permission. Totally, 69% of respondents indicated their desire to record clinical encounters, split equally between wanting to do so covertly or with permission. Thematic analysis of the interviews showed that most patients are motivated by the wish to replay, relisten and share the recording with others. Some are also motivated by the idea of owning a personal record, and its potential use as verification of a poor healthcare experience. The rationale for permission seeking was based on the wish to prioritise a trusting relationship with a health professional. Those who preferred to record covertly described a pre-existing lack of trust, a fear that recording would be denied, and a concern that an affronted clinician would deny them access to future care. There was a general wish that recording should be facilitated., Conclusions: Patients' prime motivation for recording is to enhance their experience of care, and to share it with others. Patients know that recording challenges the 'ceremonial order of the clinic', and so some decide to act covertly. Patients wanted clearer, more permissive policies to be developed., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)