Keywords
contraception - decision making - weight gain - women - focus group - survey
Background and Significance
Background and Significance
Birth control, also referred to as contraception, is any medication or device to prevent
pregnancy.[1] Popular contraceptive methods include condoms, birth control pills, and intrauterine
devices (IUDs). Certain methods are very effective in preventing pregnancy, but others
are less so due to frequent user error. Beyond pregnancy prevention, some contraceptives
provide additional health benefits,[2] including reducing hormonal acne, decreasing the symptoms from health conditions
such as polycystic ovary syndrome and endometriosis,[3]
[4] and managing the side effects of menstruation.[3] Yet other methods may come at an increased risk of depression, anxiety, and high
blood pressure.[5]
[6]
Previous studies have shown that lack of knowledge of highly efficient contraceptive
methods results in their low adoption rates and misuse, especially in young women.[3] Selecting the right birth control method is a complex and challenging process due
to the many factors to consider, such as: (1) cost—not all methods are easily accessible
with health insurance plans[3]
[7]; (2) the experiences of peers—many young women are more comfortable using a method
if they have heard positive remarks from their close friends and family;[7] and (3) “forgettability”—the users do not wish to maintain the contraceptive method
every day.[3]
To assist in selecting the appropriate contraceptive methods, online decision aids
could be potentially useful tools. Online decision aids integrate various resources
for patient education, provide support in complex decision making, and generate customized
recommendations based on a specific user's needs and preferences.[3]
[7]
[8] These tools have been used in a wide variety of health problems to assist patients
and health care consumers.[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
Existing Online Tools for Contraception Decision Aids and Their Limitations
There are two popular online contraceptive decision aids—the Planned Parenthood Birth
Control Quiz[13] and the Bedsider Comparison Matrix.[14] The Planned Parenthood tool consists of a short quiz that evaluates a user's preferences,
lifestyle, and opinions on certain methods. Based on a user's response, the tool recommends
three birth control methods. Additional educational resources are provided for those
interested in learning more about these recommendations. The Bedsider Comparison Matrix
is a large grid that allows a user to compare and contrast many different contraceptive
methods at the same time. The feature “Build Your Own” allows for comparison of up
to three different methods selected by the user.
In a previous study, we assessed the accuracy and usability of the tools provided
by Planned Parenthood and Bedsider.[15] We found a number of limitations: (1) missing certain decision factors deemed important
to young women, such as weight gain and prior experience of using a specific contraceptive
method,[15] from both tools; (2) usability issues, such as heavy reliance on recall when using
symbols to denote contraceptives in the Bedsider matrix and no possibility to go back
to correct a mistake in the Planned Parenthood quiz[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]; and (3) inaccurate recommendations by the Planned Parenthood quiz—not reflecting
the needs or preferences of the user.[15]
Development of My Contraception Choice Tool
We developed a new birth control decision aid, My Contraceptive Choice (MCC),[17]
[18] aiming to fill the knowledge gaps among the young women in selecting appropriate
contraceptive methods,[20]
[21] to accommodate their unique needs in contraceptive decision making, and to address
the issues identified in the two existing contraceptive patient decision aids. We
designed the MCC tool based on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines,
additional medical literatures, the previous study on the two existing online tools,
and the findings from a focus group.[2]
[3]
[5]
[7]
[17]
[18]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24] MCC focused on a list of contraceptive methods relevant to the target population,
including condom,[25] copper IUD,[26] hormonal IUD,[26] ring,[27] mini pill,[28] combination pill,[28] implant,[29] patch,[30] shot,[31] and fertility awareness methods.[32] The functions of the MCC tool included three main sections: (1) a quiz to gather
user preferences and prior experiences for specific contraceptive methods; (2) a side-by-side
comparison of all contraceptive methods, with the customized recommendations highlighted;
and (3) additional resources for educational purposes.
For the quiz in Section (1), we designed four distinct pages to solicit user needs
and preferences. On the Personal Preferences page, a user can express priorities on
cost effectiveness, preventing pregnancy, managing periods and their side effects,
and (low) possibility of weight gain. On the User Experiences page, a user can indicate
specific methods used before and prior experiences with them. On the Medical History
page, a user can list health conditions that may interfere with use of specific contraceptive
methods. On the Additional Factors page, a user can specify further preferences such
as comfortableness with insertion of a foreign body in vagina, level of hormones,
and frequency of maintenance.
We developed a numerical scoring system to rank the contraceptive methods based on
a user's answers to the questions on the above topics. After completing data collection,
the MCC tool recommends three contraceptive methods with the top scores.
Immediately following the quiz, a user is directed to Section (2) of the tool, which
provides a matrix of all contraceptive methods for side-by-side comparison, with the
top three recommendations customized to the user highlighted in blue color. The columns
of this table include all the contraceptive methods, and the rows list the major factors
considered by young women when selecting a birth control method.
In Section (3), detailed information pertaining to each of the top recommended contraceptive
methods is presented. The last function of the MCC tool provides additional resources
related to all the contraceptive methods, with links to external resources.
Screenshots of the three sections of the MCC tool are shown in [Fig. 1]. The system features of MCC when compared with the two other birth control decision
aids are summarized in [Table 1]. Additional details can be found in our previous publication.[17]
[18]
Fig. 1 The three sections of the MCC tool: (1) a quiz to gather user preferences and prior
experiences (only showing page 1 of 4), (2) a side-by-side comparison of all contraceptive
methods, and (3) additional resources for patient education. MCC, My Contraceptive
Choice.
Table 1
The system features of MCC when compared with the other birth control decision aids
|
MCC
|
Planned Parenthood
|
Bedsider
|
|
Decision factors
|
Cost effectiveness
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
|
Prevents pregnancy
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
|
Managing periods and side effects
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
|
(Low) possibility of weight gain
|
Yes
|
No
|
No
|
|
Previous experience with methods
|
Yes
|
No
|
No
|
|
Comfortable with insertion of a foreign body in the vagina?
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
|
Level of hormones
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
|
Frequency to maintain method
|
Yes
|
No
|
Yes
|
|
Presentation of results
|
Customized recommendations
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
|
Comparison matrix
|
Yes
|
No
|
Yes
|
|
Additional resources
|
Patient education
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
|
Link-out resources (clinic, pharmacy, online shop, etc.)
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Abbreviation: MCC, My Contraceptive Choice.
Objectives
We report an evaluative study in this article to assess the MCC tool in terms of:
(1) generating appropriate recommendations that are customized to an individual user's
needs and preferences and (2) usability and usefulness. This research serves as an
important step in a series of work for development and evaluation of a patient decision
aid to select appropriate contraceptive methods.
Methods
We designed a mixed methods study with three components: (1) a qualitative assessment
on usefulness and usability of the MCC tool via a survey; (2) an in-depth understanding
of user experience and feedback through a focus group; and (3) a quantitative evaluation
on the customized recommendations generated by the MCC tool through case simulations.
The Arizona State University (ASU) Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved this
study.
Survey
As the first step of the evaluation, we conducted a survey to assess the perceived
usefulness and usability of the MCC tool. For this purpose, we solicited the potential
participants from the female students at ASU who were between 18 and 24 years old.
We obtained consent from 150 recruited participants. Five randomly selected participants
received a $20 Amazon gift card as compensation for their time.
We performed the survey online through Google Forms. Participants were sent a link
to the online survey, which included the MCC tool and the instruction to complete
the quiz. After a participant used the MCC tool, she could proceed to answer the 17
survey questions. These questions focused on: (1) user background, such as demographics
and experiences in using contraception methods and related online tools; (2) usefulness
of the tool, including satisfaction of customized recommendations; (3) usability of
the tool; (4) general impression and impact of the tool; and (5) an open question
at the end to solicit additional comments. The questions in categories (2), (3), and
(4) used a five-point Likert scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree. For data
analysis, we profiled the users based on their background. For each question related
to usefulness, usability, and general impression/impact, we analyzed the participant
feedback by grouping them into positive (strongly agree and agree) versus nonpositive
(neutral, disagree, and strongly disagree) responses. We conducted a co-variate analysis
on race, ethnicity, age groups, prior use of a birth control method, and prior use
of a contraception-related online tool to examine the potential differences. For the
open question at the end, we analyzed the comments for overall connotation (good/bad)
and categorized them into themes of accuracy and usability.
Focus Group
To obtain in-depth understanding of user experience on MCC, we conducted an online
focus group through Zoom. For this purpose, we randomly selected 10 participants from
the survey who expressed interests in the follow-up focus group and obtained consent.
Each participant received a $35 Amazon gift card as compensation for the 2-hour focus
group session.
We organized the focus group as semi-structured interviews. To guide the discussion,
we prepared a series of questions for the participants, including: (1) their opinions
on specific aspects of the MCC tool in terms of usefulness and usability; (2) their
satisfaction with the customized recommendations generated by the MCC tool; and (3)
the comparison of the MCC tool to the resources provided by Planned Parenthood and
Bedsider. The first author served as the moderator. The focus group session was recorded
and transcribed. To start the conversation, a participant was selected to share her
thoughts; others then joined the discussion. The participants could bring in topics
other than the original questions. When there was a disagreement, the moderator made
notes of how many participants landed on each side. For data analysis, we reviewed
the transcripts and identified the points that were heavily agreed or disagreed upon.
These findings were categorized by different themes, including satisfaction with their
recommendation, overall usability, and suggestions for improvement. Statements that
corroborated design choices were noted.
Simulation of Test Cases
The survey and focus group provided qualitative assessment on usefulness and usability
of the MCC tool. However, they were unlikely able to assess all scenarios in its use.
To provide a quantitative measure to validate the customized recommendations generated
by the MCC tool, we conducted a simulation study with a systematically generated dataset
of test cases such as to assess the level of compliance with user needs and preferences.
As a comparison, we applied the same dataset of test cases to the Planned Parenthood
Birth Control Quiz.
The test cases were built by iterating through the decision factors that were present
in both the MCC and the Planned Parenthood tools. These factors related to user preferences
(high or low importance) such as cost effectiveness, preventing pregnancy, managing
periods and their side effects, and (low) possibility of weight gain, as well as user
needs such as past experiences (yes or no to certain methods) and the number of hormones
(MCC: none, one, or two; Planned Parenthood quiz: yes [hormones] or no [hormones]).
As the Planned Parenthood quiz did not include pre-existing medical conditions, this
feature of the MCC tool was not included in the test cases.
A total of 300 simulated test cases were generated, representing all possible combinations
of the decision factors; 180 were applied to MCC and 120 applied to the Planned Parenthood
tool. The MCC tool had a larger number of test cases due to three available options
for one of the decision factors, number of hormones, as opposed to two options in
the Planned Parenthood quiz (see the previous paragraph). Each recommendation provided
three methods to the user, which created 900 total individual recommendations (300 × 3).
Using this logic, the MCC tool had 540 (180 × 3) individual method recommendations,
and the Planned Parenthood quiz had 360 (120 × 3) individual method recommendations.
These individual method recommendations were manually evaluated to determine if they
accurately represented the input of a user, given the information obtained in the
literature review. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was used to examine
the statistical significance of the difference between the two measures.
Results
Survey
We have received a total of 150 responses from the survey, with no missing values.
Most participants (123, 82%) were between the age of 18 and 21 years old. The majority
were Caucasian (102, 68%) and Not Hispanic (125, 83%). A breakdown of the age and
race/ethnicity distribution can be found in [Fig. 2]. Most participants (129, 86%) have used a form of birth control or condoms. More
than half of the participants (82, 55%) have previously used an online tool to learn
more about birth control methods. A breakdown of previous user experience can be found
in [Fig. 3].
Fig. 2 Distribution of survey participants by ethnicity, race, and age.
Fig. 3 Distribution of survey participants by prior experience in birth control and online
tools.
The participants' assessment of the MCC tool was very positive. In terms of usefulness,
112 (75%) responses agreed/strongly agreed that the recommended contraceptive methods
were appropriate and reflected their personal preferences; 132 (88%) responses agreed/strongly
agreed that this tool was beneficial in helping people learn more about birth control
methods. In terms of usability, 136 (91%) responses agreed/strongly agreed that the
layout of the MCC tool made it easy to navigate; 133 (89%) responses agreed/strongly
agreed that it was easy to learn more about the contraceptive methods. Overall, 130
(87%) responses agreed/strongly agreed that the MCC tool enhanced the process of learning.
A breakdown of the survey responses can be found in [Fig. 4].
Fig. 4 The responses for the survey questions (n = 150). Strongly agree and agree responses are grouped together as “positive” and
strongly disagree and disagree responses are grouped together as “negative.”
A covariate analysis of age, race, ethnic background, prior use of birth control,
and prior use of online contraceptive tool for survey questions recorded <80% of positive
responses indicated no significant differences (see [Table 2]).
Table 2
Summary of the results from the covariate analysis on survey questions recorded <80%
of positive responses
|
Age
|
Ethnicity
|
Race
|
Birth control experience
|
Decision aid experience
|
|
Q1: Recommendations were appropriate and reflected preferences
|
0.589
|
0.919
|
0.947
|
0.561
|
0.802
|
|
Q2: Would recommend tool to a friend
|
0.629
|
0.278
|
0.187
|
0.849
|
0.328
|
|
Q3: More confident about knowledge of birth control methods
|
0.949
|
0.562
|
0.223
|
0.563
|
0.807
|
Note: The numbers in the table cells indicate the p-values when performing one-way analysis of variance analysis.
The survey participants provided 54 comments. Among them, 24 (40%) were compliments
and generic comments such as “great job!”; 23 (38%) comments suggested improvements
on some features of the MCC tool such as alterations to questions asked and usability
issues; and the remaining 13 (22%) comments were a critique of the tool, which did
not offer opportunities for improvement and generally surrounded dissatisfaction to
the recommendations (see further discussions below in [Table 3] and the “Simulated Test Cases” section).
Table 3
A summary of the findings from the focus group
|
Findings
|
Supporting quotes
|
|
Usefulness
|
|
The tool helps with the contraceptive selection process
|
•“It seems very useful if I was looking for a way to help my period or just overall
birth control”
|
|
•“A good jumping off point”
|
|
•“Explicitly states what each [method] is and how they're used”
|
|
The results reflected user needs and preferences
|
•“[On the] last page I got educational information that dealt with things that were
important to me”
|
|
•“Some of the results for me were helpful”
|
|
•“[My recommendation] made sense to me and, like the information section at the end
definitely did”
|
|
The information presented is appropriate for the target population
|
•“[MCC] specifies like an effect in weight gain theirs doesn't and I know personally
as a teenage girl that's like one of the big things that I'm worried about so I'm
really glad that yours addresses that”
|
|
•“You were able to cram a good amount of information without me being like oh my god
that's a lot to look at”
|
|
•“The information was…short and easy to understand, especially for some who might
not be familiar with like different methods like implants or so”
|
|
The additional resources are helpful
|
•“Planned Parenthood is very reputable so I appreciated that”
|
|
•“You went through acne which for me has always been the biggest thing that would
affect my self-esteem so I'm really glad you included those features”
|
|
Usability
|
|
The tool is easy to use
|
•“I was able to take it really quickly, mainly because, like it was so easy to understand.”
|
|
•“I didn't have to read the directions, or like click around a lot”
|
|
The tool is easy to navigate
|
•“I like that you can go back to the previous sections without like deleting all your
results”
|
|
•“It was super easy to use and really clear like progress”
|
|
•“It was really easy to navigate”
|
|
It is easy to understand the results section
|
•“Once you get your recommendations, you can go back to the chart, so I really like
that feature”
|
|
•“I don't read every single x or check, but I feel like it's very helpful to have
it there and it gives you more information”
|
|
•“Having a few columns highlighted is definitely helpful just to make a couple of
things stand out, instead of just looking at all of this together”
|
|
Comparison to existing tools
|
|
The tool is an efficient hybrid of the two tools
|
•“Best of both worlds”
•“[Bedsider] can be really overwhelming and like I wouldn't consider myself a beginner
in terms of like knowing birth controls, but I could see why your tool would be especially
good for beginners”
|
|
The language used is easy to understand
|
•“[The language] is accessible to college students because there's a good balance
between like the overly medical jargon. I don't think the Planned Parenthood one was
like that”
|
|
•“I liked that you used more like gender neutral [language] and didn't ask questions
about people's partners”
|
|
•“I wasn't sure what party ready meant and I definitely think it's an inappropriate
title”
|
|
This tool fits the target population better
|
•“The Planned Parenthood one is a little bit more complicated, so this is good for
someone who may not have a lot of prior knowledge about birth control”
|
|
•“[Planned Parenthood] just doesn't seem like an accurate representation of what my
primary concerns are”
|
|
Suggestions for improvement
|
|
The results need to elaborate on cost effectiveness more
|
•“You didn't put a price range, like the others, so I think if there's going to be
a mention of cost effectiveness, I think, for each one, there should be a price range”
|
|
•“[People] have an idea in their head of what exactly is low budget it's not just
like the experimenter's opinion on what's low budget”
|
|
•“I think a lot of people right now are having to have their parents pay for their
medical treatment or things like that has to go through insurance which one's parents
might know about. I think it's really cool to include that as well”
|
|
The methods presented can be altered to fit the target population better
|
•“I liked that [Bedsider] had an extra category for emergency contraception”
|
|
•“I think withdrawal, or the pullout method is important to list because I don't think
people understand like how poor of a choice that is”
|
|
•“In order to not be pregnant, I think [FAM] is a very, very risky method and I don't
really think it should be included in the list of methods”
|
|
•“If a method isn't particularly great for STI prevention, maybe explaining like 'Oh,
when used in combination with something else it's okay'”
|
|
Other
|
•On indicating previous experiences: “I think, like, for it to be just kind of binary
like yes, no or neutral like I'm not neutral, but I wouldn't say it was an entirely
positive experience last time, but I wouldn't say it's always a negative experience
so something that's you know.”
|
|
•“Might have been helpful if there was like an asterisk and it said, like we're noting
this because…”
|
Abbreviations: MCC, My Contraceptive Choice; STI, sexually transmitted infection.
Focus Group
From the individuals who responded to the survey, we recruited 10 participants to
formulate a focus group to further evaluate the MCC tool. Among them, two participated
in a previous focus group to develop the MCC tool.[17]
[18] Although sampled at random, the background narrowly reflected the survey population—7
Caucasians, 2 Asians, and 1 African American; all had experience with birth control
methods; and 6 had experience with contraception decision aids.
The focus group participants agreed that the MCC tool was a helpful resource for contraceptive
method selection. One individual stated that it was “very useful if I was looking
a way to help my period or just overall birth control.” Many participants thought
that the customized recommendations fit their overall needs and “reflected things
most important to me” such as concerns on weight gain.
The participants enjoyed the usability of the tool, as the information was “short
and easy to understand, especially for someone who might not be familiar with like
different methods like implants.” Participants stated that the Results section was
especially useful, and many highlighted the ability to go back and forth between the
detailed text information and the side-by-side comparison matrix.
When comparing to the existing tools, the participants indicated that the MCC tool
was an efficient hybrid of the Planned Parenthood and Bedsider resources, citing it
as the “best of both worlds.” They believed that highlighting the columns of the recommended
methods made it easy to compare to other methods. The language was also more professional
compared to the other resources.
A summary of the focus group findings can be found in [Table 3].
Simulated Test Cases
To assess the accuracy of the MCC tool, we developed 300 simulated test cases, with
180 applied to the MCC tool to generate 540 recommendations and 120 applied to the
Planned Parenthood quiz to generate 360 recommendations.
The first set of evaluation criteria focused on accommodating user preferences in
terms of cost effectiveness, preventing pregnancy, managing periods and their side
effects, and (low) possibility of weight gain. The original version of the MCC tool
reflected user preferences in 216 of the 540 (40%) recommendations, while the Planned
Parenthood quiz reflected user preferences in 108 of the 360 (30%) recommendations.
The second set of evaluation criteria focused on addressing user needs in terms of
past experiences and number of hormones in a contraceptive method. The original version
of the MCC tool reflected user needs in 348 of the 540 (64%) recommendations. The
Planned Parenthood quiz, in contrast, reflected user needs for 111 of the 360 (31%)
recommendations.
The test cases revealed three issues that led to the relatively low accuracy rate
of the original version of the MCC tool: (1) a bug in the code that inhibited adding
preference values in the scoring system; (2) a lack of case management for contraceptive
methods with scores tied for the third-place recommendation slot; and (3) some combinations
of preferences could not be fulfilled by any methods present in the MCC tool.
After fixing the bug in the code associated with (1), the MCC tool reflected user
preferences in 252 of the 540 (47%) recommendations and addressed user needs in 351
of the 540 (65%) recommendations.
To address the issue in (2), we further reviewed the test cases by including all contraceptives
methods tied for the third place. The accumulated performance after addressing both
issues in (1) and (2) indicated that the MCC tool adhered to user preferences in 261
of the 540 (48%) recommendations and reflected user needs in 389 of the 540 (72%)
recommendations.
To counteract the issue in (3), we added a new system feature to highlight the recommendation
in yellow color, rather than blue, indicating that the recommended method may not
fully adhere to user preferences but is still the best fit based on their inputs.
The accumulated performance after addressing all the issues in (1), (2), and (3) indicated
that the MCC tool reflected user preferences in 387 of the 540 (72%) recommendations.
The adherence to user needs remained to be 72%. Compared to the Planned Parenthood
tool, MCC recorded a statistically significant better performance for user preferences
(p < 0.001) and needs (p < 0.001). A summary of the results is shown in [Table 4].
Table 4
The performance of the MCC and Planned Parenthood tools
|
Systems and recommendations for test cases
|
User preferences
|
User needs
|
|
Planned Parenthood tool (out of 360)
|
108 (30%)
|
111 (31%)
|
|
MCC—original (out of 540)
|
216 (40%)
|
348 (64%)
|
|
MCC—fixed bug (out of 540)
|
252 (47%)
|
351 (65%)
|
|
MCC—addressed tied methods (out of 540)
|
261 (48%)
|
389 (72%)
|
|
MCC—fixed unsatisfiable preferences (out of 540)
|
387 (72%)
|
389 (72%)
|
Abbreviation: MCC, My Contraceptive Choice.
Discussion
This study leveraged a mixed methods design with the three components of survey, focus
group, and simulated test cases. Each study component provided unique perspectives
in evaluation of the MCC tool, and meanwhile the findings from the different components
complemented each other, as shown by the data reported in [Fig. 4], [Table 3] and [4].
The data from the survey and focus group indicated that the MCC tool achieved good
performance in terms of the usefulness and usability. Specifically, the survey respondents
expressed high satisfaction with the educational information (81%), the assistance
in learning more about contraceptive methods (88%), as well as user control in navigation
and correction of data entry mistakes (91%). The focus group re-confirmed most findings
from the survey and provided detailed user feedback on certain system functions, such
as: (1) the efficient hybrid design that highlighted the customized recommendations
(brought from the Planned Parenthood quiz) within the side-by-side comparisons of
all contraceptive methods (borrowed from the Bedsider matrix); and (2) providing additional
information and actionable items (clinic, pharmacy, and online shopping) for the recommended
contraceptive methods. In particular, the MCC tool included a unique decision factor
of potential weight gain, which was deemed very important to the target population
of college-aged women in selection of contraceptive methods.[33]
[34]
Regarding the recommendations generated by the MCC tool, 75% of survey respondents
had positive feedback about their appropriateness and reflection of personal preferences.
Further quantitative assessment through simulated test cases indicated that the MCC
tool achieved a similar level of accuracy in addressing user preferences (72%) and
needs (72%) after the issues identified were fixed. In contrast, the performance of
the Planned Parenthood tool was at the level of 30% (user preferences) and 31% (user
needs). Obviously, there is room for further improvement of the MCC tool's performance,
for example, by including additional hard rules to remove a contraceptive method from
the recommendation if a user has indicated no more use.
There were two limitations in this study. First, the survey and focus group participants
were recruited from ASU's College of Health Solutions and Barrett Honors College.
The students in these two colleges were likely more knowledgeable on contraceptive
methods when compared to the general public. Generalization of certain findings, for
example, the structure and format of the resources provided, from this group to other
populations, including those with more diversified racial and ethnic backgrounds as
well as other age groups, should be further studied. Second, the overall design of
this evaluation study was in a lab setting and used simulated test cases. While these
were reasonable approaches for initial assessment, a more robust evaluation should
be conducted with direct use of the MCC tool in naturalistic settings.[35] This is a direction for our future work.
Conclusion
An initial evaluation of the MCC tool through a survey and a focus group has demonstrated
its good performance in usefulness and usability. Simulated test cases have shown
that the MCC tool can generate appropriate recommendations that reasonably address
users' needs and preferences better than the existing Planned Parenthood tool. Future
research is required to assess the performance of the MCC tool in naturalistic settings
and to examine the generalizability of the findings to other user populations.
Clinical Relevance Statement
Clinical Relevance Statement
This research provided a new patient decision aid, MCC, for college-aged women to
select appropriate contraceptive methods based their individual needs and preferences.
The study indicated good performance of the MCC tool in terms of usefulness and usability,
as well as more appropriate recommendations when compared to the existing Planned
Parenthood tool.
Multiple-Choice Questions
Multiple-Choice Questions
-
What is a potential function of a patient decision aid?
-
Focus groups
-
Patient education
-
Quality improvement
-
User satisfaction
Correct Answer: The correct answer is option b. Patient education. A decision aid can help the user
to make a more informed decision by providing educational resources.
-
What is a measure when evaluating a patient decision aid?
-
Usability
-
Color palette
-
IQ of users
-
Test cases
Correct Answer: The correct answer is option a. Usability. Usability evaluation focuses on how well
users can learn and use a patient decision aid.
