A Decision Aid for Patients Considering Surgery for Sciatica: Codesign and User‐Testing With Patients and Clinicians.

Background: Surgery can help patients with leg pain caused by sciatica recover faster, but by 12 months outcomes are similar to nonsurgical management. For many the decision to have surgery may require reflection, and patient decision aids are an evidence‐based clinical tool that can help guide patients through this decision. Objective: The aim of this study was to develop and refine a decision aid for patients with sciatica who are deciding whether to have surgery or 'wait and see' (i.e., try nonsurgical management first). Design: Semistructured interviews with think‐aloud user‐testing protocol. Participants: Twenty clinicians and 20 patients with lived experience of low back pain or sciatica. Outcome Measures: Items from Technology Acceptance Model, Preparation for Decision Making Scale and Decision Quality Instrument for Herniated Disc 2.0 (knowledge instrument). Methods: The prototype integrated relevant research with working group perspectives, decision aid standards and health literacy guidelines. The research team refined the prototype through seven rounds of user‐testing, which involved discussing user‐testing feedback and implementing changes before progressing to the next round. Results: As a result of working group feedback, the decision aid was divided into sections: before, during and after a visit to the surgeon. Across all rounds of user‐testing, clinicians rated the resource 5.9/7 (SD = 1.0) for perceived usefulness, and 6.0/7 for perceived ease of use (SD = 0.8). Patients reported the decision aid was easy to understand, on average correctly answering 3.4/5 knowledge questions (SD = 1.2) about surgery for sciatica. The grade reading score for the website was 9.0. Patients scored highly on preparation for decision‐making (4.4/5, SD = 0.7), suggesting strong potential to empower patients. Interview feedback showed that patients and clinicians felt the decision aid would encourage question‐asking and help patients reflect on personal values. Conclusions: Clinicians found the decision aid acceptable, patients found it was easy to understand and both groups felt it would empower patients to actively engage in their care and come to an informed decision that aligned with personal values. Input from the working group and user‐testing was crucial for ensuring that the decision aid met patient and clinician needs. Patient or Public Contribution: Patients and clinicians contributed to prototype development via the working group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]