Abstract
Purpose: Inadequate health information can result in serious mood problems, distorted risk perception, decisional regret, and lower quality of life. Making use of personalised education based on different informational needs, will make information more accessible and empower patients. While studies about content have been conducted, this study focusses on presentation of content linked to patient preferences and characteristics to fill the gap towards real personalisation.
Methods: A questionnaire was compiled based on Bol et al (2020) about demographics, decision-making style, learning style, health information literacy, attitude towards digital information and information preferences and distributed amongst women (≥30 years) recruited over social media. Preferences were linked to patient characteristics Mann-Whitney U, Chi-quadrate and Kruskal-Wallis tests.
Results: Of the responses, 55/100 were complete and eligible. Respondents (49±11 years) indicated the desire to make decisions about treatment themselves (15%) or with their physician (76%). Although all were positive about knowing where to find information, 38% still finds terminology and explanations difficult. In general, 93% believe that personalisation has great potential. Most would like to know both positive and negative information (98%), of which 24% would like to receive information dosed over time. Moreover, 78% indicate they first want basic information and then have the choice to go deeper, 15% and 7% only want extensive or basic information, respectively. When comparing writing style, 78% prefer factual over narrative presentation style. Distribution of preference for text, text and illustrations or text and video is 6, 64 and 29% respectively. For navigation, 73% like a menu and 27% prefer previous/next buttons. Women who want dosed information prefer images and video, while people who want everything at once prefer text and images (p=0.004). Moreover, women who like to know everything at once have a greater preference for factual writing style (p=0.027). Respondents who preferred to be guided by the website were relatively older (p=0.013).
Conclusion: A positive attitude towards personalisation and variation in preferences is observed. Although the respondents were not patients, this suggests personalisation depends on patient characteristics and preferences. To this end, more insight into patient characteristics and preferences should be achieved, to compile preference profiles which can be translated into matching information designs. This would improve patient knowledge and empower them to be involved in shared decision-making.
Methods: A questionnaire was compiled based on Bol et al (2020) about demographics, decision-making style, learning style, health information literacy, attitude towards digital information and information preferences and distributed amongst women (≥30 years) recruited over social media. Preferences were linked to patient characteristics Mann-Whitney U, Chi-quadrate and Kruskal-Wallis tests.
Results: Of the responses, 55/100 were complete and eligible. Respondents (49±11 years) indicated the desire to make decisions about treatment themselves (15%) or with their physician (76%). Although all were positive about knowing where to find information, 38% still finds terminology and explanations difficult. In general, 93% believe that personalisation has great potential. Most would like to know both positive and negative information (98%), of which 24% would like to receive information dosed over time. Moreover, 78% indicate they first want basic information and then have the choice to go deeper, 15% and 7% only want extensive or basic information, respectively. When comparing writing style, 78% prefer factual over narrative presentation style. Distribution of preference for text, text and illustrations or text and video is 6, 64 and 29% respectively. For navigation, 73% like a menu and 27% prefer previous/next buttons. Women who want dosed information prefer images and video, while people who want everything at once prefer text and images (p=0.004). Moreover, women who like to know everything at once have a greater preference for factual writing style (p=0.027). Respondents who preferred to be guided by the website were relatively older (p=0.013).
Conclusion: A positive attitude towards personalisation and variation in preferences is observed. Although the respondents were not patients, this suggests personalisation depends on patient characteristics and preferences. To this end, more insight into patient characteristics and preferences should be achieved, to compile preference profiles which can be translated into matching information designs. This would improve patient knowledge and empower them to be involved in shared decision-making.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | NP145-NP145 |
| Journal | Medical decision making |
| Volume | 44 |
| Issue number | 3 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 4 Mar 2024 |
| Event | 45th Annual North American Meeting of the Society for Medical Decision Making, SMDM 2023: Innovation in Decision Making: Thinking to Tools - Philadelphia, United States Duration: 22 Oct 2023 → 25 Oct 2023 https://smdm.org/meeting/45th-annual-north-american-meeting |