Appl Clin Inform 2024; 15(01): 075-084
DOI: 10.1055/a-2224-8000
Research Article

Evaluation of a Patient Decision Aid for Refractive Eye Surgery

Bhavani Subbaraman
1   College of Health Solutions, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, United States
,
Kamran Ahmed*
2   College of Health Solutions, Phoenix Children's Hospital, Phoenix, Arizona, United States
,
Matthew Heller*
3   College of Health Solutions, Eye Doctors of Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona, United States
,
Alison C. Essary
1   College of Health Solutions, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, United States
,
Vimla L. Patel
1   College of Health Solutions, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, United States
,
Dongwen Wang
1   College of Health Solutions, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, United States
› Author Affiliations
Funding Barrett, the Honors College at Arizona State University

Abstract

Background We developed a prototype patient decision aid, EyeChoose, to assist college-aged students in selecting a refractive surgery. EyeChoose can educate patients on refractive errors and surgeries, generate evidence-based recommendations based on a user's medical history and personal preferences, and refer patients to local refractive surgeons.

Objectives We conducted an evaluative study on EyeChoose to assess the alignment of surgical modality recommendations with a user's medical history and personal preferences, and to examine the tool's usefulness and usability.

Methods We designed a mixed methods study on EyeChoose through simulations of test cases to provide a quantitative measure of the customized recommendations, an online survey to evaluate the usefulness and usability, and a focus group interview to obtain an in-depth understanding of user experience and feedback.

Results We used stratified random sampling to generate 245 test cases. Simulated execution indicated EyeChoose's recommendations aligned with the reference standard in 243 (99%). A survey of 55 participants with 16 questions on usefulness, usability, and general impression showed that 14 questions recorded more than 80% positive responses. A follow-up focus group with 10 participants confirmed EyeChoose's useful features of patient education, decision assistance, surgeon referral, as well as good usability with multimedia resources, visual comparison among the surgical modalities, and the overall aesthetically pleasing design. Potential areas for improvement included offering nuances in soliciting user preferences, providing additional details on pricing, effectiveness, and reversibility of surgeries, expanding the function of surgeon referral, and fixing specific usability issues.

Conclusion The initial evaluation of EyeChoose suggests that it could provide effective patient education, generate appropriate recommendations, connect to local refractive surgeons, and demonstrate good system usability in a test environment. Future research is required to enhance the system functions, fully implement and evaluate the tool in naturalistic settings, and examine the findings' generalizability to other populations.

Protection of Human and Animal Subjects

The study was performed in compliance with the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki on ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects and was reviewed and approved by Arizona State University Institutional Review Board.


* These authors are considered co-second authors.


Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 31 July 2023

Accepted: 06 December 2023

Accepted Manuscript online:
08 December 2023

Article published online:
24 January 2024

© 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 
  • References

  • 1 Wedner S, Dineen B. Refractive errors. Trop Doct 2003; 33 (04) 207-209
  • 2 National Institute of Health National Eye Institute. Refractive errors. Updated June 10, 2022 . Accessed March 26, 2023 at: https://www.nei.nih.gov/learn-about-eye-health/eye-conditions-and-diseases/refractive-errors
  • 3 Turbert D. Alternative refractive surgery procedures. American Academy of Ophthalmology. Reviewed April 25, 2023. Accessed March 26, 2023 at: https://www.aao.org/eye-health/treatments/refractive-surgery-alternative-procedures
  • 4 Dunkin MA. A Guide to Refractive and Laser Eye Surgery. WebMD. Reviewed March 6, 2023 . Accessed March 26, 2023 at: https://www.webmd.com/eye-health/overview-refractive-laser-eye-surgery
  • 5 Kohnen T, Strenger A, Klaproth OK. Basic knowledge of refractive surgery: correction of refractive errors using modern surgical procedures. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2008; 105 (09) 163-170 , quiz 170–172
  • 6 eyewire + . Market scope: Refractive surgery to grow 9.6% a year through 2025,. despite COVID-19. 2021 . Accessed September 9, 2022 at: https://eyewire.news/articles/market-scope-refractive-surgery-to-grow-9-6-a-year-through-2025-despite-covid-19/?c4src=article:infinite-scroll
  • 7 An introduction to patient decision aids. Drug Ther Bull 2012; 50 (08) 90-92
  • 8 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Medicines Optimisation: The Safe and Effective Use of Medicines to Enable the Best Possible Outcomes. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng5. Published March 2015. Accessed March 26, 2023
  • 9 Healthwise. Nearsightedness: Should I have laser surgery?. Updated October 12, 2022 . Accessed September 9, 2022 at: https://www.healthwise.net/ohridecisionaid/Content/StdDocument.aspx?DOCHWID=aa127024
  • 10 Mayo Clinic. LASIK surgery: Is it right for you?. 2021 . Accessed September 9, 2022 at: https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/lasik-eye-surgery/in-depth/lasik-surgery/art-20045751
  • 11 Subbaraman B, Ahmed K, Heller M, Essary AC, Patel VL, Wang D. Development of a patient decision aid for refractive eye surgery. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2023; 2022: 1022-1031
  • 12 Wilkinson JM, Cozine EW, Kahn AR. Refractive eye surgery: helping patients make informed decisions about LASIK. Am Fam Physician 2017; 95 (10) 637-644
  • 13 Eydelman M, Hilmantel G, Tarver ME. et al. Symptoms and satisfaction of patients in the Patient-Reported Outcomes With Laser In Situ Keratomileusis (PROWL) studies. JAMA Ophthalmol 2017; 135 (01) 13-22
  • 14 U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Before, during & after surgery. Updated January 8, 2018 . Accessed March 26, 2023 at: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/phakic-intraocular-lenses/during-after-surgery
  • 15 Wachler BB. Phakic IOLs (implantable lenses). All About Vision. 2019 . Accessed March 26, 2023 at: https://www.allaboutvision.com/lens-implant-surgery/
  • 16 Chuck RS, Jacobs DS, Lee JK. et al; American Academy of Ophthalmology Preferred Practice Pattern Refractive Management/Intervention Panel. Refractive Errors & Refractive Surgery Preferred Practice Pattern®. Ophthalmology 2018; 125 (01) P1-P104
  • 17 Elwyn G, O'Connor A, Stacey D. et al; International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration. Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. BMJ 2006; 333 (7565) 417
  • 18 Rahimi B, Nadri H, Lotfnezhad Afshar H, Timpka T. A systematic review of the Technology Acceptance Model in health informatics. Appl Clin Inform 2018; 9 (03) 604-634
  • 19 Boyatzis RE. Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications;; 1998
  • 20 Nowell LS, Norris JM, White DE, Moules NJ. Thematic analysis: striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. Int J Qual Methods 2017; 16 (01) 1-13
  • 21 Vashistha V, Poonnen PJ, Snowdon JL. et al. Medical oncologists' perspectives of the Veterans Affairs National Precision Oncology Program. PLoS ONE 2020; 15 (07) e0235861
  • 22 Abraham J, Nguyen V, Almoosa KF, Patel B, Patel VL. Falling through the cracks: information breakdowns in critical care handoff communication. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2011; 2011: 28-37
  • 23 Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 2006; 3 (02) 77-101
  • 24 Maguire M, Delahunt B. Doing a thematic analysis: a practical, step-by-step guide for learning and teaching scholars. AISHE-J 2017; 9 (03) 3-5
  • 25 Le XH, Doll T, Barbosu M, Luque A, Wang D. Evaluation of an Enhanced Role-Based Access Control model to manage information access in collaborative processes for a statewide clinical education program. J Biomed Inform 2014; 50: 184-195
  • 26 Redman M, Brian J, Wang D. Evaluation of an online decision aid for selection of contraceptive methods. Appl Clin Inform 2023; 14 (01) 153-163
  • 27 Kushniruk AW, Patel VL. Cognitive and usability engineering methods for the evaluation of clinical information systems. J Biomed Inform 2004; 37 (01) 56-76
  • 28 Puccinelli-Ortega N, Cromo M, Foley KL. et al. Facilitators and barriers to implementing a digital informed decision making tool in primary care: a qualitative study. Appl Clin Inform 2022; 13 (01) 1-9
  • 29 Dharod A, Bellinger C, Foley K, Case LD, Miller D. The reach and feasibility of an interactive lung cancer screening decision aid delivered by patient portal. Appl Clin Inform 2019; 10 (01) 19-27