Development of a Patient-Centered Preference Tool for Patients With Hematologic Malignancies: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The approval of novel therapies for patients diagnosed with hematologic malignancies have improved survival outcomes but increased the challenge of aligning chemotherapy choices with patient preferences. We previously developed paper versions of a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and a best-worst scaling (BWS) instrument to quantify the treatment outcome preferences of patients with hematologic malignancies to inform shared decision making. OBJECTIVE: We aim to develop an electronic health care tool (EHT) to guide clinical decision making that uses either a BWS or DCE instrument to capture patient preferences. The primary objective of this study is to use both qualitative and quantitative methods to evaluate the perceived usability, cognitive workload (CWL), and performance of electronic prototypes that include the DCE and BWS instrument. METHODS: This mixed methods study includes iterative co-design methods that will involve healthy volunteers, patient-caregiver pairs, and health care workers to evaluate the perceived usability, CWL, and performance of tasks within distinct prototypes. Think-aloud sessions and semistructured interviews will be conducted to collect qualitative data to develop an affinity diagram for thematic analysis. Validated assessments (Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire [PSSUQ] and the National Aeronautical and Space Administration's Task Load Index [NASA-TLX]) will be used to evaluate the usability and CWL required to complete tasks within the prototypes. Performance assessments of the DCE and BWS will include the evaluation of tasks using the Single Easy Questionnaire (SEQ), time to complete using the prototype, and the number of errors. Additional qualitative assessments will be conducted to gather participants' feedback on visualizations used in the Personalized Treatment Preferences Dashboard that provides a representation of user results after completing the choice tasks within the prototype. RESULTS: Ethical approval was obtained in June 2021 from the Institutional Review Board of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The DCE and BWS instruments were developed and incorporated into the PRIME (Preference Reporting to Improve Management and Experience) prototype in early 2021 and prototypes were completed by June 2021. Heuristic evaluations were conducted in phase 1 and completed by July 2021. Recruitment of healthy volunteers began in August 2021 and concluded in September 2021. In December 2021, our findings from phase 2 were accepted for publication. Phase 3 recruitment began in January 2022 and is expected to conclude in September 2022. The data analysis from phase 3 is expected to be completed by November 2022. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings will help differentiate the usability, CWL, and performance of the DCE and BWS within the prototypes. These findings will contribute to the optimization of the prototypes, leading to the development of an EHT that helps facilitate shared decision making. This evaluation will inform the development of EHTs to be used clinically with patients and health care workers. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/39586.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.080 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.059 | 0.012 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".