Exploring Success Factors for Digital Patient Decision Aid Implementation: A Hybrid Fuzzy Delphi and DEMATEL Approach
Pages 71 - 80
Abstract
Patient decision aid (PtDA) is an important tool that can help patients make decisions and realize the concept of shared decision-making. In the context of digital healthcare, PtDAs are gradually shifting to digital platforms. However, the implementation of digital PtDA is still very limited and gaps exist in understanding the influencing factors that contribute to its implementation. This study proposes a hybrid approach based on the Fuzzy Delphi method and the Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) method to determine main influencing factors (MIFs) and key influencing factors (KIFs) for prioritization and to analyze the causality between these factors. Through the HME framework and literature review, the researchers identified 28 preliminary influencing factors (PIFs). And then through the fuzzy Delphi method, 15 of the MIFs were identified. Finally, through the DEMATEL method, the influential relation map of the MIFs was constructed and 8 KIFs were identified. Among them, “information accuracy”, “integration with current healthcare systems” and “healthcare team training” are the most important KIFs that can contribute to the successful implementation of digital PtDAs. This study not only helps policy makers and managers to develop more effective implementation strategies in this digital context, but also provides valuable information for designers and developers of digital PtDAs.
References
[1]
Dawn Stacey, France Légaré, Krystina Lewis, Michael J. Barry, Carol L. Bennett, Karen B. Eden, Margaret Holmes Rovner, Hilary Llewellyn Thomas, Anne Lyddiatt, Richard Thomson, and Lyndal Trevena. 2017. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. (April 2017). https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd001431.pub5.
[2]
Kristen E. Pecanac, Roger L. Brown, and Hanna B. Kremsreiter. 2021. Decisional conflict during major medical treatment decision-making: a survey study. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 36, 1 (August 2020), 55-61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-020-06125-1.
[3]
Suzanne K Steginga, Stefano Occhipinti, RA Frank Gardiner, John Yaxley, and Peter Heathcote. 2004. Prospective study of men's psychological and decision-related adjustment after treatment for localized prostate cancer. Urology 63, 4 (April 2004), 751-756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2003.11.017.
[4]
Ju Qiyu. 2021. Study on the status and influencing factors of breast cancer patients' participation in treatment decision making and decisional regret. Master's thesis. Shandong University, Shandong, China.
[5]
Chuck Alston, Zackary Berger, Shannon Brownlee, Glyn Elwyn, Floyd J. Fowler Jr, Leslie Kelly Hall, Victor M. Montori, Ben Moulton, Lyn Paget, and Brenna Haviland-Shebel. 2014. Shared decision-making strategies for best care: patient decision aids. NAM Perspectives 4, 9 (September 2014). https://doi.org/10.31478/201409f.
[6]
International Patient Decision Aid Collaboration. 2024. International Patient Decision Aid. Retrieved April 17, 2024 from http://ipdas.ohri.ca.
[7]
Maria A. Lopez-Olivo and Maria E. Suarez-Almazor. 2019. Digital patient education and decision aids. Rheumatic Disease Clinics 45,2 (May 2019), 245-256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rdc.2019.01.001.
[8]
Glyn Elwyn, Annette O'Connor, Dawn Stacey, Robert Volk, Adrian Edwards, Angela Coulter, Richard Thomson, Alexandra Barratt, Michael Barry, and Steven Bernstein. 2006. Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. BMJ (August 2006), 417. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38926.629329.ae.
[9]
Dawn Stacey and Robert J. Volk. 2021. The International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration: Evidence Update 2.0. Medical Decision Making 41, 7 (2021), 729-733. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x211035681.
[10]
Achim Hochlehnert, Angelika Richter, Hans-Bernd Bludau, Christiane Bieber, Klaus Blumenstiel, Knut Mueller, Stefanie Wilke, and Wolfgang Eich. 2006. A computer-based information-tool for chronic pain patients: Computerized information to support the process of shared decision-making. Patient Educ. Couns. 61,1 (2006), 92-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2005.02.014.
[11]
Neal J. Meropol, Brian L. Egleston, Joanne S. Buzaglo, Andrew Balshem, Al B. Benson III, Donald J. Cegala, Roger B. Cohen, Michael Collins, Michael A. Diefenbach, and Suzanne M. Miller. 2013. A Web‐based communication aid for patients with cancer: The CONNECT Study. Cancer 119,7 (January 2013), 1437-1445. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.27874.
[12]
Nina Weymann, Jörg Dirmaier, Alessa Von Wolff, Levente Kriston, and Martin Härter. 2015. Effectiveness of a Web-based tailored interactive health communication application for patients with type 2 diabetes or chronic low back pain: randomized controlled trial. J. Med. Internet Res. 17,3 (March 2015), e3904. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.3904.
[13]
Kaitlyn M. Wojcik, Dalya Kamil, Julia Zhang, Oliver WA Wilson, Laney Smith, Gisela Butera, Claudine Isaacs, Allison Kurian, and Jinani Jayasekera. 2024. A scoping review of web-based, interactive, personalized decision-making tools available to support breast cancer treatment and survivorship care. J. Cancer Surviv. (March 2024), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-024-01567-6.
[14]
Anna Staszewska, Pearl Zaki, and Joon Lee. 2017. Computerized decision aids for shared decision making in serious illness: systematic review. JMIR Med. Inf. 5,4 (October 2017), e6405. https://doi.org/10.2196/medinform.6405.
[15]
Johanna Persson and Christofer Rydenfält. 2021. Why are digital health care systems still poorly designed, and why is health care practice not asking for more? Three paths toward a sustainable digital work environment. J. Med. Internet Res. 23,6 (June 2021), e26694. https://doi.org/10.2196/26694.
[16]
Ian D. Graham, Jo Logan, Carol L. Bennett, Justin Presseau, Annette M. O'Connor, Susan L. Mitchell, Jacqueline M. Tetroe, Ann Cranney, Paul Hebert, and Shawn D. Aaron. 2007. Physicians' intentions and use of three patient decision aids. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak.7 (July 2007), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-7-20.
[17]
Kemi Jona and Adam Gerber. 2010. MyOncofertility.org: a web-based patient education resource supporting decision making under severe emotional and cognitive overload. Oncofertility: Ethical, legal, social, and medical perspectives (January 2010), 345-361. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6518-9_26.
[18]
Elizabeth AH Wilson and Michael S. Wolf. 2009. Working memory and the design of health materials: a cognitive factors perspective. Patient Educ. Couns. 74,3 (March 2009), 318-322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2008.11.005.
[19]
Ying Li, Jin Li, Qian Zhan, and Qing He. 2018. A qualitative study of Internet informational support for neck cancer patients. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, Vol. 250: Nursing Informatics 2018. https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-872-3-121.
[20]
Lin Yu, Ping Li, Shu Yang, Pingping Guo, Xuehui Zhang, Na Liu, Jie Wang, and Wei Zhang. 2020. Web-based decision aids to support breast cancer screening decisions: systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Comp. Eff. Res. 9,14 (August 2020), 985-1002. https://doi.org/10.2217/cer-2020-0052.
[21]
Liam Alperen Oktay, Eyad Abuelgasim, Aida Abdelwahed, Nour Houbby, Smaragda Lampridou, Pasha Normahani, Nicholas Peters, and Usman Jaffer. 2021. Factors affecting engagement in web-based health care patient information: Narrative review of the literature. J. Med. Internet Res. 23,9 (September 2021), e19896. https://doi.org/10.2196/19896.
[22]
Aubri S. Hoffman, Robert J. Volk, Anton Saarimaki, Christine Stirling, Linda C. Li, Martin Härter, Geetanjali R. Kamath, and Hilary Llewellyn-Thomas. 2013. Delivering patient decision aids on the Internet: definitions, theories, current evidence, and emerging research areas. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 13 (November 2013), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-13-S2-S13.
[23]
Sofia Baptista, Elvira Teles Sampaio, Bruno Heleno, Luís Filipe Azevedo, and Carlos Martins. 2018. Web-based versus usual care and other formats of decision aids to support prostate cancer screening decisions: systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Med. Internet Res. 20,6 (June 2018), e228. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.9070.
[24]
Mengke Xie, Hong Wang, Fengjuan Guo, Laijing Xing, Yijun Wang and Qiaofang Yang. 2022. Current status of the patient decision assistance and their influencing factors: a research progress. Guangxi Medical Journal 44,12 (June 2022), 1406-1409.
[25]
Siobhan O'Donnell, Ann Cranney, Mary J. Jacobsen, Ian D. Graham, Annette M. O'Connor, and Peter Tugwell. 2006. Understanding and overcoming the barriers of implementing patient decision aids in clinical practice. J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 12,2 (March 2006), 174-181. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2006.00613.x.
[26]
Wen Ting Tong, Yew Kong Lee, Chirk Jenn Ng, and Ping Yein Lee. 2017. Factors influencing implementation of a patient decision aid in a developing country: an exploratory study. Implement. Sci. 12 (March 2017), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0569-9.
[27]
Ania Syrowatka, Dörthe Krömker, Ari N. Meguerditchian, and Robyn Tamblyn. 2016. Features of computer-based decision aids: systematic review, thematic synthesis, and meta-analyses. J. Med. Internet Res. 18,1 (January 2016), e20. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.4982.
[28]
Ruben Vromans, Kim Tenfelde, Steffen Pauws, Mies Van Eenbergen, Ingeborg Mares-Engelberts, Galina Velikova, Lonneke Van De Poll-Franse, and Emiel Krahmer. 2019. Assessing the quality and communicative aspects of patient decision aids for early-stage breast cancer treatment: a systematic review. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 178 (July 2019), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-019-05351-4.
[29]
Melanie De Looper, Olga Damman, Ellen Smets, Danielle Timmermans, and Julia Van Weert. 2020. Adapting online patient decision aids: effects of modality and narration style on patients’ satisfaction, information recall and informed decision making. J. Health Commun. 25,9 (December 2020), 712-726. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2020.1840674.
[30]
Lyndsey Franklin, Catherine Plaisant, Kazi Minhazur Rahman, and Ben Shneiderman. 2016. TreatmentExplorer: An interactive decision aid for medical risk communication and treatment exploration. Interact. Comput. 18,3 (May 2016), 238-252. https://doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iwu043.
[31]
Natalie Joseph-Williams, Purva Abhyankar, Laura Boland, Paulina Bravo, Alison T. Brenner, Suzanne Brodney, Angela Coulter, Anik Giguère, Aubri Hoffman, and Mirjam Körner. 2021. What works in implementing patient decision aids in routine clinical settings? A rapid realist review and update from the international patient decision aid standards collaboration. Med. Decis. Mak. 41,7 (October 2021), 907-937. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X20978208.
[32]
Norhanisha Yusof, Nor Laily Hashim, and Azham Hussain. 2022. A review of fuzzy Delphi method application in human-computer interaction studies. In AIP Conference Proceedings of the 5th Innovation and Analytics Conference & Exhibition (IACE 2021). AIP Publishing, Kedah, Malaysia, 040026. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0094417.
[33]
Phesto P. Namayala, Tabu S. Kondo, and Leonard J. Mselle. 2023. The Factors Affecting User Experience Maturity in Free and Open Source Software Community: An Empirical Study. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction (October 2023), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2023.2262270.
[34]
Mohd Radhi Md Shukri and Shamsul Arrieya Ariffin. Evaluation of Mobile Game Based Learning Heuristic Using Fuzzy Delphi Technique for Primary School Science Subject in Malaysia. In World Conference on Mobile and Contextual Learning (October 2020), 105-110.
[35]
Hassan Rana, Muhammad Umer, Uzma Hassan, Umer Asgher, Faheem Jamal, Afshan Naseem, and Nadeem Ehsan. 2024. The application of Fuzzy Delphi Method for evaluating biopsychosocial factors for prioritization of patients. IISE Transactions on Healthcare Systems Engineering 14,1 (January 2024), 55-68.
[36]
Chayada Kanokphanvanich, Wanchai Rattanawong, and Varin Vongmanee. 2023. A new model for a sustainable healthcare supply chain prioritizes patient safety: using the fuzzy Delphi method to identify healthcare workers’ perspectives. Sustainability 15,9 (April 2023), 7123. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097123.
[37]
Prashant Kumar Singh and Prabir Sarkar. 2020. A framework based on fuzzy Delphi and DEMATEL for sustainable product development: A case of Indian automotive industry. J. Clean Prod. 246 (February 2020), 118991. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118991.
[38]
Arash Habibi, Farzad Firouzi Jahantigh, and Azam Sarafrazi. 2015. Fuzzy Delphi technique for forecasting and screening items. Asian Journal of Research in Business Economics and Management 5,2 (2015), 130-143. http://dx.doi.org/10.5958/2249-7307.2015.00036.5.
[39]
Yakup Çelikbilek and Ayşe Nur Adıgüzel Tüylü. 2022. Prioritizing the components of e-learning systems by using fuzzy DEMATEL and ANP. Interact. Learn. Environ. 30,2 (February 2022), 322-343. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1655065.
[40]
Lanndon Ocampo, Cristy Abarca, Cristine Abarca, Ninja Godes, Esmeralda Pelola, Margie Pensona, Magel Niñofranco, Cherry Ann Itallo, Cristine Paler, and Celbert Himang. 2021. Utilizing DEMATEL for value-embedded e-learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Educ. Res. Int. (August 2021), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/9575076.
[41]
Feyyaz Cengiz Dikmen and Yunus Taş. 2018. Applying DEMATEL approach to determine factors affecting hospital service quality in a university hospital: A case study. Journal of Administrative Sciences 16,32 (September 2018), 11-28.
[42]
Ahmed Ibrahim Alzahrani, Hosam Al-Samarraie, Atef Eldenfria, Joana Eva Dodoo, and Nasser Alalwan. 2022. Users’ intention to continue using mHealth services: A DEMATEL approach during the COVID-19 pandemic. Technol. Soc. 68 (February 2022), 101862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.101862.
[43]
Wen-Yi Liu, Tao-Hsin Tung, Yen-Ching Chuang, and Ching-Wen Chien. 2021. Using DEMATEL technique to identify the key success factors of shared decision-making based on influential network relationship perspective. J. Healthc. Eng. (April 2021), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6618818.
[44]
Hsu-En Huang, Frank Lien, Jing-Chi Lin, Ko-Ming Lin, and Shan-Fu Yu. 2023. Establishing the Professional Competencies of Internal Medicine Residents to Implement Shared Decision-Making Through the DMEATEL Method. Journal of Internal Medicine of Taiwan 34,2 (April 2023), 111-123.
[45]
Sheng-Li Si, Xiao-Yue You, Hu-Chen Liu, and Ping Zhang. 2018. DEMATEL technique: A systematic review of the state-of-the-art literature on methodologies and applications. Math. Probl. Eng. (January 2018), 1-33. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/3696457.
Index Terms
- Exploring Success Factors for Digital Patient Decision Aid Implementation: A Hybrid Fuzzy Delphi and DEMATEL Approach
Recommendations
Critical Success Factors in Electronic Health Records EHR Implementation: An Exploratory Study in North India
Electronic Health Records EHR has been the subject of much academic discussion in recent times. The impact that a successful implementation of EHR can have on a hospital cannot be overstated. Factors which are crucial to successful implementation of an ...
Modelling the critical success factors of software development freelancing using an intuitionistic fuzzy DEMATEL approach
This paper investigates the critical success factors of software development freelancing in the Philippines during the COVID-19 pandemic. The paper adopts the intuitionistic fuzzy decision making trial and evaluation laboratory (IF-DEMATEL), which is a ...
An identification of a model for digital library critical success factors
Purpose -- A significant amount of digital repository research and development activity is taking place worldwide, which calls for the investigation of issues identified as critical to the development, management and sustainability of these ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
May 2024
514 pages
ISBN:9798400709838
DOI:10.1145/3677892
Copyright © 2024 ACM.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 26 August 2024
Check for updates
Qualifiers
- Research-article
- Research
- Refereed limited
Conference
DSAI 2024
DSAI 2024: 2024 International Conference on Digital Society and Artificial Intelligence
May 24 - 26, 2024
Qingdao, China
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 15Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)15
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)3
Reflects downloads up to 10 Nov 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Get Access
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign inFull Access
View options
View or Download as a PDF file.
PDFeReader
View online with eReader.
eReaderHTML Format
View this article in HTML Format.
HTML Format