Premium
Development and field testing of a tool to elicit women's preferences among cervical cancer screening modalities
Author(s) -
Wood Brianne,
Taljaard Monica,
ElKhatib Ziad,
McFaul Susan,
Graham Ian D.,
Little Julian
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
journal of evaluation in clinical practice
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.737
H-Index - 73
eISSN - 1365-2753
pISSN - 1356-1294
DOI - 10.1111/jep.13258
Subject(s) - modalities , test (biology) , medicine , preference , cervical cancer , decision aids , pap test , family medicine , cervical cancer screening , cervical screening , medical education , gynecology , cancer , alternative medicine , pathology , paleontology , social science , sociology , economics , biology , microeconomics
Objective The objective of the present study is to describe the development and field testing of a preference‐elicitation tool for cervical cancer screening, meeting International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) quality criteria. Methods We developed a tool designed to elicit women's preferences among cervical cancer screening modalities. The Ottawa Decision Support Framework and IPDAS systematic development process guided the design, and we followed IPDAS criteria for conducting a field test in a real‐world setting. Using social media recruitment strategies, we identified a convenience sample of Ontario women who were currently eligible for cervical screening to test the tool. We evaluated the feasibility, acceptability, balance of information, and ability to elicit women's informed, values‐based preferences using an online survey embedded in the tool. Results Twenty‐five women participated in the field test. Participants were aged 20 to 63 years , and identified as predominantly white (88%), living in Northern Ontario (68%), and most had university education (75%). Most participants (72%) considered the length of the website as “just right,” and 100% indicated that they would find the tool useful for decision‐making. Over two‐thirds (68%) of participants perceived the information in the tool as “balanced.” Almost all (92%) participants scored at least 4 out of 7 on the knowledge quiz, and most participants (84%) selected their preference in an informed, values‐based way. Conclusion The results from our field test of this tool provide preliminary evidence of the tool's feasibility, acceptability, balance, and ability to elicit women's informed, values‐based preferences among available cervical screening modalities. Further research should elicit the distribution of preferences of cervical screening modalities in other regions, using a sample who represents the screening population and a rigorous study design. It will be important for researchers and screening programmes to evaluate the tool's ability to elicit women's informed, values‐based preferences compared with educational materials.