IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v45y2025i7p775-793.html

Process for Rapid Co-development of a Decision Aid Prototype for Population-wide Cancer Screening

Author

Listed:
  • Odilon Quentin Assan

    (Unité de soutien SSA Québec, Quebec, Canada
    Chaire du Canada en décision partagée et mobilisation des connaissances, Quebec, Canada
    VITAM – Centre de recherche en santé durable, Quebec, Canada)

  • Claude Bernard Uwizeye

    (Unité de soutien SSA Québec, Quebec, Canada
    Chaire du Canada en décision partagée et mobilisation des connaissances, Quebec, Canada
    VITAM – Centre de recherche en santé durable, Quebec, Canada)

  • Hervé Tchala Vignon Zomahoun

    (Institut national d’excellence en santé et en services sociaux, Quebec, Canada)

  • Oscar Nduwimana

    (Unité de soutien SSA Québec, Quebec, Canada
    Chaire du Canada en décision partagée et mobilisation des connaissances, Quebec, Canada
    VITAM – Centre de recherche en santé durable, Quebec, Canada)

  • Wilhelm Dubuisson

    (Ministère de la Santé et de Services sociaux du Québec, Quebec, Canada)

  • Guillaume Sillon

    (Ministère de la Santé et de Services sociaux du Québec, Quebec, Canada)

  • Danielle Bergeron

    (Ministère de la Santé et de Services sociaux du Québec, Quebec, Canada)

  • Stéphane Groulx

    (Ministère de la Santé et de Services sociaux du Québec, Quebec, Canada)

  • Wilber Deck

    (Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux de la Gaspésie, Quebec, Canada)

  • Anik Giguère

    (VITAM – Centre de recherche en santé durable, Quebec, Canada)

  • France Légaré

    (Unité de soutien SSA Québec, Quebec, Canada
    Chaire du Canada en décision partagée et mobilisation des connaissances, Quebec, Canada
    VITAM – Centre de recherche en santé durable, Quebec, Canada)

Abstract

Decision aids (DA) are more likely to be adopted if co-developed with stakeholders and culturally adapted. Using the DEVELOPTOOLS Reporting Checklist, we describe a process for rapid co-development of a culturally adapted DA prototype for population-wide cancer-screening programs. Our systematic, collaborative, and iterative methodology had 7 phases: 1) set up the process by adopting best governance practices (e.g., identify and engage stakeholders, adapt our collaborative DA design process, validate development process), with governance comprising 20 individuals from a wide range of sectors including at least 2 citizens; 2) identify and analyze existing DAs relevant to the cancerscreening of interest by conducting a systematic review; 3) share results with stakeholders and make recommendations; 4) formulate Quebec-specific DA content and consult stakeholders including users by conducting e-Delphi surveys; 5) co-design a prototype with stakeholders, including users, following international DA standards; 6) translate the DA using translation–back translation approaches and deploy; and 7) knowledge mobilization (KMb) using end-of-grant and integrated KMb activities. Using the User-Centred Design 11-Item Measure (UCD-11), our proposed process scored 10 of 11 on the UCD-11. Overall, we expect this new co-developed process to ensure that good-quality, user-centered, and culturally adapted DAs for cancer screening are produced within reasonable timeframes. We also expect it to foster the adoption of the DAs. Highlights We report on a 7-step process for collaborating with various stakeholders to create a culturally adapted decision aid (DA) prototype for deciding about cancer screening in Quebec, Canada. The process includes: ○ Making sure the DA prototype design includes users and other interested parties and reflects their needs, perceptions, values, and preferences. ○ Finding and analyzing existing DAs on cancer screening to decide what ours should include ○ Respecting international standards and criteria for DA design ○ Repeated rounds of expert consensus about the exact content, with revisions between each round This method could help the rapid creation of DAs shaped by users’ interests and will ultimately encourage shared decision making.

Suggested Citation

  • Odilon Quentin Assan & Claude Bernard Uwizeye & Hervé Tchala Vignon Zomahoun & Oscar Nduwimana & Wilhelm Dubuisson & Guillaume Sillon & Danielle Bergeron & Stéphane Groulx & Wilber Deck & Anik GiguÃ, 2025. "Process for Rapid Co-development of a Decision Aid Prototype for Population-wide Cancer Screening," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 45(7), pages 775-793, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:45:y:2025:i:7:p:775-793
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X251346894
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X251346894
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X251346894?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Charles, Cathy & Gafni, Amiram & Whelan, Tim, 1997. "Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: What does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango)," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 681-692, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Manuel Antonio Espinoza & Andrea Manca & Karl Claxton & Mark Sculpher, 2018. "Social value and individual choice: The value of a choice‐based decision‐making process in a collectively funded health system," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(2), pages 28-40, February.
    2. Hyojung Tak & Gregory Ruhnke & Ya-Chen Shih, 2015. "The Association between Patient-Centered Attributes of Care and Patient Satisfaction," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 8(2), pages 187-197, April.
    3. Miller, Nancy & Weinstein, Marcie, 2007. "Participation and knowledge related to a nursing home admission decision among a working age population," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 303-313, January.
    4. France Légaré & Annette M. O'Connor & Ian D. Graham & Georges A. Wells & Stéphane Tremblay, 2006. "Impact of the Ottawa Decision Support Framework on the Agreement and the Difference between Patients' and Physicians' Decisional Conflict," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 26(4), pages 373-390, July.
    5. Odette Wegwarth & Wolfgang Gaissmaier & Gerd Gigerenzer, 2011. "Deceiving Numbers," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(3), pages 386-394, May.
    6. Karnieli-Miller, Orit & Eisikovits, Zvi, 2009. "Physician as partner or salesman? Shared decision-making in real-time encounters," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 1-8, July.
    7. Paul C. Schroy III & Karen Emmons & Ellen Peters & Julie T. Glick & Patricia A. Robinson & Maria A. Lydotes & Shamini Mylvanaman & Stephen Evans & Christine Chaisson & Michael Pignone & Marianne Prout, 2011. "The Impact of a Novel Computer-Based Decision Aid on Shared Decision Making for Colorectal Cancer Screening," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(1), pages 93-107, January.
    8. Mei-Chun Cheung & Derry Law & Joanne Yip & Jason Pui Yin Cheung, 2022. "Adolescents’ Experience during Brace Treatment for Scoliosis: A Qualitative Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(17), pages 1-10, August.
    9. Meike Müller-Engelmann & Norbert Donner-Banzhoff & Heidi Keller & Lydia Rosinger & Carsten Sauer & Kerstin Rehfeldt & Tanja Krones, 2013. "When Decisions Should Be Shared," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(1), pages 37-47, January.
    10. Margaret Gerteis & Rosemary Borck, "undated". "Shared Decision-Making in Practice: Lessons from Implementation Efforts," Mathematica Policy Research Reports f802e52b8442486594ecda927, Mathematica Policy Research.
    11. Mark Sculpher & Amiram Gafni, 2001. "Recognizing diversity in public preferences: The use of preference sub‐groups in cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(4), pages 317-324, June.
    12. repec:plo:pone00:0186458 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Coast, Joanna, 2018. "A history that goes hand in hand: Reflections on the development of health economics and the role played by Social Science & Medicine, 1967–2017," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 227-232.
    14. Ruth Astbury & Ashley Shepherd & Helen Cheyne, 2017. "Working in partnership: the application of shared decision‐making to health visitor practice," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(1-2), pages 215-224, January.
    15. Vivek Goel & Carol A. Sawka & Elaine C. Thiel & Elaine H. Gort & Annette M. O’Connor, 2001. "Randomized Trial of a Patient Decision Aid for Choice of Surgical Treatment for Breast Cancer," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(1), pages 1-6, February.
    16. Solomon, Josie & Knapp, Peter & Raynor, D.K. & Atkin, Karl, 2013. "Worlds apart? An exploration of prescribing and medicine-taking decisions by patients, GPs and local policy makers," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(3), pages 264-272.
    17. Debra Kerr & Rosie Crone & Trisha Dunning, 2020. "Perspectives about dignity during acute care for older people and their relatives: A qualitative study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(21-22), pages 4116-4127, November.
    18. Andrew J. Vickers & Paul Bennett, 2024. "“Sensemaking†to Aid Shared Decision Making in Clinical Practice: A Personal Response to Information Overload and Decision Abdication," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 44(6), pages 607-610, August.
    19. Turrini, Mauro & Valenti, Roberta & Ladegaard Knox, Jeanette Bresson & NKosi Rio, Aarón Zau & Svendsen, Mette N. & Bourgain, Catherine, 2026. "Beyond Preferences: Rethinking shared decision-making through the Lens of care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 390(C).
    20. Tate, Alexandra, 2020. "Invoking death: How oncologists discuss a deadly outcome," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    21. Wirtz, Veronika & Cribb, Alan & Barber, Nick, 2006. "Patient-doctor decision-making about treatment within the consultation--A critical analysis of models," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 116-124, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:45:y:2025:i:7:p:775-793. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.