Evaluation of a Patient Decision Aid for Refractive Eye Surgery

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

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.

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
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 An introduction to patient decision aids. Drug Ther Bull 2012; 50 (08) 90-92
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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
  PubMed
• 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
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Wachler BB. Phakic IOLs (implantable lenses). All About Vision. 2019 . Accessed March 26, 2023 at: https://www.allaboutvision.com/lens-implant-surgery/
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Boyatzis RE. Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications;; 1998
  Google Scholar
• 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
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 2006; 3 (02) 77-101
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar

• Supplementary Material