Background Traditional approaches to designing decision aids have focused on providing completeness of information and quantitative detail. An alternative approach based on psychological research emphasises understanding the essence or 'gist' of the decision. Few gist-based decision aids exist. The objective of this study was to develop novel gist-based decision aids for prostate and breast cancer screening and evaluate their acceptability. Methods Men aged 40 - 60 years and women aged 40 - 49 years eligible for prostate or breast cancer screening were recruited from ResearchMatch (National Institutes of Health) and a public hospital located in New York City. Three rounds of semistructured interviews were performed to determine self-reported comprehensibility and acceptability, with iterative modifications after each phase, including: Phase 1: initial feedback; Phase 2, Round 1: evaluating our modifications; and Phase 2, Round 2: confirming final content. Results A total of 80 participants were involved in the two-phase qualitative interview process; Phase 1 and Phase 2 included 32 and 48 participants, respectively. Racial distribution was 50% white, 30% black and 10% Asian; 9% of participants were Hispanic or Latino.
Background Traditional approaches to designing decision aids have focused on providing completeness of information and quantitative detail. An alternative approach based on psychological research emphasises understanding the essence or 'gist' of the decision. Few gist-based decision aids exist. The objective of this study was to develop novel gist-based decision aids for prostate and breast cancer screening and evaluate their acceptability. Methods Men aged 40 - 60 years and women aged 40 - 49 years eligible for prostate or breast cancer screening were recruited from ResearchMatch (National Institutes of Health) and a public hospital located in New York City. Three rounds of semistructured interviews were performed to determine self-reported comprehensibility and acceptability, with iterative modifications after each phase, including: Phase 1: initial feedback; Phase 2, Round 1: evaluating our modifications; and Phase 2, Round 2: confirming final content. Results A total of 80 participants were involved in the two-phase qualitative interview process; Phase 1 and Phase 2 included 32 and 48 participants, respectively. Racial distribution was 50% white, 30% black and 10% Asian; 9% of participants were Hispanic or Latino. Most participants were highly educated. Interview themes established content validity of the final decision aids. In a quantitative analysis of the final decision aids using a questionnaire with fixed response options, acceptability was high, with two-thirds finding the length and amount of information of the decision aid to be optimal. The majority found the decision aid visually appealing, easy to read and easy to get through, and indicated that it held their interest and did not require much mental effort to read. One-quarter said the tool made them feel somewhat nervous, and three-quarters not at all. Most participants could understand and relate to the images, graphs and patient stories in the decision aid. After Phase 2, 45 of the 48 participants (94%) said they would find the decision aid helpful when making a decision. Conclusion This study describes the iterative development and pilot testing of a novel gist-based decision aid for cancer screening, demonstrating high acceptability. Our findings provide a foundation for randomised trials comparing gist-based and traditional tools.