Users' experiences with the interactive Evidence to Decision framework (iEtD): a qualitative analysis

Session: 

Oral session: Patient or healthcare consumers involvement and shared decision-making (4)

Date: 

Sunday 16 September 2018 - 16:50 to 17:00

Location: 

All authors in correct order:

Meneses-Echávez J1, Alonso-Coelho P2, Rosenbaum S1, Flottorp S1, Rada G3, Vasquez J4
1 Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway
2 Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre, CIBERESP-IIB Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain
3 Epistemonikos Foundation; Centro Evidencia UC, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile
4 Epistemonikos Foundation, Chile
Presenting author and contact person

Presenting author:

Jose Meneses-Echávez

Contact person:

Abstract text
Background:
The interactive Evidence to Decision (iEtD) tool, developed in the context of the DECIDE project, is a stand-alone version of the GRADEpro GDT Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework. The iEtD is freely available online but little is known about how organisations have been using it or their user experience.

Objectives:
To evaluate users' experiences with the iEtD and identify the main barriers to and facilitators for its use.

Methods:
We contacted 856 users registered in the iEtD via email and invited the 20 users who referred to a real use of the software to a semi-structured interview. Audio recordings were transcribed and one researcher carried out a content analysis of the interviews, supported with the honeycomb framework. Two researchers independently checked the content for accuracy.

Results:
We interviewed seven users from six countries in four continents. The most common scenario they described was using iEtD in the context of guideline development. Participants reported having an overall positive experience, without any major difficulties navigating or using the different sections of the framework. They also reported having used most of the framework criteria satisfactorily. Some reported tailoring the framework, for instance adding or deleting criteria, translating to another language or rewording headings. Several preferred to produce a Word version rather than working online, due to practical constraints and lack of flexibility. Some reported serious concerns with the exportable formats, especially in terms of understandability.

Conclusions:
A very limited number of users have used the iEtD tool since its development. Although the experience is in general positive, our work has identified some important limitations of this resource. Our findings could be of use in improving this resource, for the further development of GRADEpro GDT or other similar software.

Patient or healthcare consumer involvement:
Our findings are based on users' experiences.

Relevance to patients and consumers: 

This study describes the users' experiences of the interactive Evidence-to-Decision framework (iEtD), their main barriers and facilitators. Further developments of similares softwares for evidence-informed decision making processes will enhance the overall quality of care.