2f:I[703058,["/_next/static/immutable/chunks/3bhq_5eh1d760.js","/_next/static/immutable/chunks/1855-ogyi8eh4.js","/_next/static/immutable/chunks/2pfsjpn6k6zlg.js","/_next/static/immutable/chunks/26c7v3_3uwnwu.js","/_next/static/immutable/chunks/25a3ozcrvi1ff.js","/_next/static/immutable/chunks/2r4wx50nvjh_4.js","/_next/static/immutable/chunks/23fsw06hsi5b1.js","/_next/static/immutable/chunks/06_yt270h41rg.js","/_next/static/immutable/chunks/3ezsiz-7shkna.js","/_next/static/immutable/chunks/20x2y96ldu5wx.js","/_next/static/immutable/chunks/2lxntcm3pd1_h.js","/_next/static/immutable/chunks/00dgco8irq3jw.js","/_next/static/immutable/chunks/00nwe-kq0rboc.js","/_next/static/immutable/chunks/2051ffx3xzio9.js"],"PaperListPageClient"] 30:T9e5,Patient decision aids (PDAs) are tools that facilitate medical discourse between patients and clinicians, enabling patients to make informed choices among treatment options. While PDAs have been developed for other dermatologic conditions, to our knowledge, none exist for adults with atopic dermatitis (AD). To develop a PDA that assists adult patients with moderate to severe AD in selecting systemic treatment options. For this qualitative study, the PDA was developed per International Patient Decision Aid Standards Collaboration guidelines. The development process used a systematic approach following designated phases: scoping and design, prototype development, alpha testing, beta testing, and finalization. A steering group was used for all stages of development except for beta testing, which used participants outside of the steering group. The study was conducted from 2020 to 2025 at Oregon Health & Science University's Department of Dermatology in both in-person and virtual environments. The steering groups consisted of 10 adult patients with moderate to severe AD and 6 dermatology clinicians for prototype development, 8 patients and 5 clinicians for alpha testing, and 5 patients and 2 clinicians for finalization of the PDA (performed after beta testing, which included 8 new patients and 6 clinicians). PDA content and quality assessments occurred through qualitative thematic analysis performed on open-ended feedback question responses from patients and clinicians. Among the 10 patients in the initial steering group, the mean (range) age was 38.7 (20-74) years, and 8 were female. Patients valued transparent and organized visual formatting, simplified language, and focused content themes, such as efficacy, dosing frequency, route of administration, relevant adverse effects, and relative costs. Dermatology clinicians prioritized laboratory monitoring, efficacy, and adverse effect data. Patients preferred simplicity, whereas clinicians preferred an emphasis on detail. The finalized International Patient Decision Aid Standards Collaboration-adherent PDA used a staged approach to balance these preferences. This qualitative study supports prior findings that when formulating PDAs, authors should prioritize simplicity to enable patient comprehension in clinician-led discussions. This study found that a staged approach may help to deliver complex treatment information in a patient-centered manner, enhancing patient-clinician discussions, and facilitating shared decision-making in adults with AD.31:Te1d, Importance Patient decision aids (PDAs) are tools that facilitate medical discourse between patients and clinicians, enabling patients to make informed choices among treatment options. While PDAs have been developed for other dermatologic conditions, to our knowledge, none exist for adults with atopic dermatitis (AD). Objective To develop a PDA that assists adult patients with moderate to severe AD in selecting systemic treatment options. Design, Setting, and Participants For this qualitative study, the PDA was developed per International Patient Decision Aid Standards Collaboration guidelines. The development process used a systematic approach following designated phases: scoping and design, prototype development, alpha testing, beta testing, and finalization. A steering group was used for all stages of development except for beta testing, which used participants outside of the steering group. The study was conducted from 2020 to 2025 at Oregon Health &amp; Science University’s Department of Dermatology in both in-person and virtual environments. The steering groups consisted of 10 adult patients with moderate to severe AD and 6 dermatology clinicians for prototype development, 8 patients and 5 clinicians for alpha testing, and 5 patients and 2 clinicians for finalization of the PDA (performed after beta testing, which included 8 new patients and 6 clinicians). Main Outcomes and Measures PDA content and quality assessments occurred through qualitative thematic analysis performed on open-ended feedback question responses from patients and clinicians. Results Among the 10 patients in the initial steering group, the mean (range) age was 38.7 (20-74) years, and 8 were female. Patients valued transparent and organized visual formatting, simplified language, and focused content themes, such as efficacy, dosing frequency, route of administration, relevant adverse effects, and relative costs. Dermatology clinicians prioritized laboratory monitoring, efficacy, and adverse effect data. Patients preferred simplicity, whereas clinicians preferred an emphasis on detail. The finalized International Patient Decision Aid Standards Collaboration–adherent PDA used a staged approach to balance these preferences. Conclusions and Relevance This qualitative study supports prior findings that when formulating PDAs, authors should prioritize simplicity to enable patient comprehension in clinician-led discussions. This study found that a staged approach may help to deliver complex treatment information in a patient-centered manner, enhancing patient-clinician discussions, and facilitating shared decision-making in adults with AD. 25:[[["$","script","0",{"type":"application/ld+json","dangerouslySetInnerHTML":{"__html":"{\"@context\":\"https://schema.org\",\"@type\":\"CollectionPage\",\"name\":\"Shared Decision-Making Tool: modality Research & Clinical Takeaways\",\"description\":\"Explore peer-reviewed papers on Shared Decision-Making Tool (modality). Clinician-written summaries and actionable practice insights. Updated daily.\",\"url\":\"https://www.reachrx.ai/hub/tag/modality/Shared%20Decision-Making%20Tool\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https://www.reachrx.ai\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Research Hub\",\"item\":\"https://www.reachrx.ai/hub\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"Modalities\",\"item\":\"https://www.reachrx.ai/hub/tag/modality\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":4,\"name\":\"Shared Decision-Making Tool\",\"item\":\"https://www.reachrx.ai/hub/tag/modality/Shared%20Decision-Making%20Tool\"}]}}"}}]],["$","$L2f",null,{"title":"Shared Decision-Making Tool: Research & Clinical Takeaways","description":"Review evidence by treatment modality: Shared Decision-Making Tool — concise summaries and practical next steps.","papers":[{"doi":"10.1002/art.70223","pmid":"42148466","title":"A Pragmatic Trial of a Shared Decision‐Making Intervention to Improve Medication Adherence and Outcomes in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: The\n HCQ\n ‐\n SAFE\n Study","journal_title":"Arthritis & Rheumatology","journal_issn":"2326-5191","published_at":"2026-05-18T00:00:00.000Z","url":"https://doi.org/10.1002/art.70223","source_score":11,"is_retracted":false,"is_open_access":true,"raw_metadata":{"pubmed":true,"crossref":true,"unpaywall":true},"created_at":"2026-05-24T13:23:06.142Z","updated_at":"2026-05-24T13:23:06.142Z","tags":[{"paper_doi":"10.1002/art.70223","tag_type":"age_group","value":"adult","value_numeric":null},{"paper_doi":"10.1002/art.70223","tag_type":"brand","value":"Plaquenil","value_numeric":null},{"paper_doi":"10.1002/art.70223","tag_type":"category","value":"Rheumatology","value_numeric":null},{"paper_doi":"10.1002/art.70223","tag_type":"condition","value":"Systemic Lupus Erythematosus","value_numeric":null},{"paper_doi":"10.1002/art.70223","tag_type":"generic","value":"hydroxychloroquine","value_numeric":null},{"paper_doi":"10.1002/art.70223","tag_type":"impact_flag","value":"practice_changing","value_numeric":null},{"paper_doi":"10.1002/art.70223","tag_type":"level_of_evidence","value":"3","value_numeric":null},{"paper_doi":"10.1002/art.70223","tag_type":"modality","value":"Shared Decision-Making Tool","value_numeric":null},{"paper_doi":"10.1002/art.70223","tag_type":"sample_size","value":"n=200","value_numeric":200},{"paper_doi":"10.1002/art.70223","tag_type":"sex","value":"mixed","value_numeric":null},{"paper_doi":"10.1002/art.70223","tag_type":"study_design","value":"Pragmatic Single-Arm Pre-Post Interventional Trial","value_numeric":null},{"paper_doi":"10.1002/art.70223","tag_type":"warning","value":"Feasibility was rated by 200 patients across 8 clinics in only 2 health systems, which may limit generalizability to other practice settings.","value_numeric":null},{"paper_doi":"10.1002/art.70223","tag_type":"warning","value":"No randomized control group — the pre/post design cannot rule out regression to the mean or natural temporal trends in adherence. The 'practice_changing' impact flag is applied cautiously given this limitation.","value_numeric":null},{"paper_doi":"10.1002/art.70223","tag_type":"warning","value":"The Plaquenil brand tag is inferred; the paper refers only to the generic hydroxychloroquine.","value_numeric":null}],"summaries":{"what_studied":"A pictogram-based shared decision-making (SDM) tool (HCQ-SAFE©), delivered in English and Spanish by nurses, pharmacists, or physicians in ~5 minutes, was evaluated in 200 adults with SLE on hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) across 8 clinics in 2 health systems to improve medication adherence and reduce decisional conflict.","key_result":"Among HCQ non-adherers at baseline (38% of 200 participants), adjusted adherence improved by 47% (95% CI: 38%–57%); residual decisional conflict dropped from 43% at baseline to 1% post-intervention, with a mean DCS score change of −35 points (95% CI: −30 to −39); all findings significant (p < 0.0001) across language, education level, and clinician role.","limitations":"No control group — single-arm pre/post design limits causal inference. Short-term follow-up only; durability of adherence gains is unknown. Feasibility ratings were self-reported by clinicians and may overestimate real-world uptake.","practice_takeaway":"A 5-minute pictogram-based SDM tool (HCQ-SAFE©) can meaningfully boost HCQ adherence and nearly eliminate residual decisional conflict in SLE patients — and can be delivered by nurses, pharmacists, or physicians without added burden. Clinicians should consider integrating this tool into routine SLE visits, especially for patients with lower health literacy or non-English language preference."}},{"doi":"10.1001/jamadermatol.2025.5912","pmid":"41670968","title":"Development of a Patient Decision Aid for Atopic Dermatitis Systemic Treatments in Adults","journal_title":"JAMA Dermatology","journal_issn":"2168-6068","published_at":"2026-02-11T00:00:00.000Z","url":"https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12895322/","source_score":31,"is_retracted":false,"is_open_access":true,"raw_metadata":{"ooir":{"day":"2026-04-19","doi":"10.1001/jamadermatol.2025.5912","days":"30","issn":"2168-6068","rank":"10","field":"Clinical Medicine","score":"31","category":"Dermatology","categories":["Dermatology"],"_categories":["Dermatology"]},"pubmed":{"doi":"10.1001/jamadermatol.2025.5912","title":"Development of a Patient Decision Aid for Atopic Dermatitis Systemic Treatments in Adults.","journal":"JAMA dermatology","methods":"","results":"Among the 10 patients in the initial steering group, the mean (range) age was 38.7 (20-74) years, and 8 were female. Patients valued transparent and organized visual formatting, simplified language, and focused content themes, such as efficacy, dosing frequency, route of administration, relevant adverse effects, and relative costs. Dermatology clinicians prioritized laboratory monitoring, efficacy, and adverse effect data. Patients preferred simplicity, whereas clinicians preferred an emphasis on detail. The finalized International Patient Decision Aid Standards Collaboration-adherent PDA used a staged approach to balance these preferences.","abstract":"$30","keywords":[],"pubmed_id":"41670968","conclusions":"","publication_date":"2026-02-11T00:00:00"},"crossref":{"DOI":"10.1001/jamadermatol.2025.5912","URL":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamadermatol.2025.5912","ISSN":["2168-6068"],"link":[{"URL":"https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/articlepdf/2844953/jamadermatology_okereke_2026_oi_250073_1775760792.00103.pdf","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"page":"343","type":"journal-article","issue":"4","score":1,"title":["Development of a Patient Decision Aid for Atopic Dermatitis Systemic Treatments in Adults"],"author":[{"given":"Robyn","family":"Okereke","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Dermatology, Oregon Health & Sciences University, Portland"}]},{"given":"Wenelia","family":"Baghoomian","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Dermatology, Oregon Health & Sciences University, Portland"}]},{"given":"Rachel R.","family":"Dunlap","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Dermatology, Oregon Health & Sciences University, Portland"}]},{"given":"Alex D.","family":"Chang","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Dermatology, Oregon Health & Sciences University, Portland"}]},{"given":"Michael E.","family":"Jacobson","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Dermatology, Oregon Health & Sciences University, Portland"}]},{"given":"Erin","family":"Foster","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Dermatology, Oregon Health & Sciences University, Portland"}]},{"given":"Milie M.","family":"Fang","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Dermatology, Oregon Health & Sciences University, Portland"}]},{"given":"Eric L.","family":"Simpson","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Dermatology, Oregon Health & Sciences University, Portland"}]}],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2026,4,1]]},"member":"10","prefix":"10.1001","source":"Crossref","volume":"162","created":{"date-time":"2026-02-11T16:30:38Z","timestamp":1770827438000,"date-parts":[[2026,2,11]]},"indexed":{"date-time":"2026-04-15T15:51:18Z","timestamp":1776268278162,"date-parts":[[2026,4,15]]},"subject":[],"abstract":"$31","language":"en","relation":{},"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/fullarticle/2844953"}},"subtitle":[],"deposited":{"date-time":"2026-04-15T15:00:26Z","timestamp":1776265226000,"date-parts":[[2026,4,15]]},"issn-type":[{"type":"print","value":"2168-6068"}],"published":{"date-parts":[[2026,4,1]]},"publisher":"American Medical Association (AMA)","reference":[{"DOI":"10.1016/j.anai.2023.11.009","key":"doi250073r1","year":"2024","issue":"3","author":"Chu","volume":"132","first-page":"274","unstructured":null,"article-title":"Atopic dermatitis (eczema) guidelines: 2023 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology/American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters GRADE– and Institute of Medicine–based recommendations.","journal-title":"Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol","doi-asserted-by":"publisher"},{"DOI":"10.1016/j.jaad.2017.06.042","key":"doi250073r2","year":"2017","issue":"4","author":"Simpson","volume":"77","first-page":"623","unstructured":null,"article-title":"When does atopic dermatitis warrant systemic therapy? recommendations from an expert panel of the International Eczema Council.","journal-title":"J Am Acad Dermatol","doi-asserted-by":"publisher"},{"DOI":"10.1136/bmjebm-2022-112068","key":"doi250073r3","year":"2023","issue":"4","author":"Montori","volume":"28","first-page":"213","unstructured":null,"article-title":"Shared decision-making as a method of care.","journal-title":"BMJ Evid Based Med","doi-asserted-by":"publisher"},{"DOI":"10.56305/001c.122787","key":"doi250073r4","year":"2024","issue":"4","author":"Hoque","volume":"3","first-page":"13","unstructured":null,"article-title":"Shared decision-making in patient care: advantages, barriers and potential solutions.","journal-title":"J Brown Hosp Med","doi-asserted-by":"publisher"},{"DOI":"10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.04.010","key":"doi250073r5","year":"2018","issue":"7","author":"Elwyn","volume":"122","first-page":"703","unstructured":null,"article-title":"A proposal for the development of national certification standards for patient decision aids in the US.","journal-title":"Health Policy","doi-asserted-by":"publisher"},{"DOI":null,"key":"doi250073r6","year":"2024","issue":"1","author":"Stacey","volume":"1","first-page":null,"unstructured":null,"article-title":"Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.","journal-title":"Cochrane Database Syst Rev","doi-asserted-by":null},{"DOI":"10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.5362","key":"doi250073r7","year":"2021","issue":"3","author":"Morrison","volume":"157","first-page":"330","unstructured":null,"article-title":"Shared decision-making in dermatology: a scoping review.","journal-title":"JAMA Dermatol","doi-asserted-by":"publisher"},{"DOI":"10.1016/j.jaip.2025.01.030","key":"doi250073r8","year":"2025","issue":"4","author":"Fishbein","volume":"13","first-page":"915","unstructured":null,"article-title":"Decision aid for pediatric atopic dermatitis.","journal-title":"J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract","doi-asserted-by":"publisher"},{"DOI":"10.1371/journal.pone.0004705","key":"doi250073r9","year":"2009","issue":"3","author":"Elwyn","volume":"4","first-page":null,"unstructured":null,"article-title":"Assessing the quality of decision support technologies using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards instrument (IPDASi).","journal-title":"PLoS One","doi-asserted-by":"publisher"},{"DOI":"10.1136/bmj.38926.629329.AE","key":"doi250073r10","year":"2006","issue":"7565","author":"Elwyn","volume":"333","first-page":"417","unstructured":null,"article-title":"Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process.","journal-title":"BMJ","doi-asserted-by":"publisher"},{"DOI":"10.1186/1472-6947-13-S2-S2","key":"doi250073r11","year":"2013","issue":null,"author":"Coulter","volume":"13","first-page":"S2","unstructured":null,"article-title":"A systematic development process for patient decision aids.","journal-title":"BMC Med Inform Decis Mak","doi-asserted-by":"publisher"},{"DOI":"10.1016/j.jaad.2020.04.063","key":"doi250073r12","year":"2020","issue":"2","author":"Nguyen","volume":"83","first-page":"691","unstructured":null,"article-title":"Dissecting drug pricing: supply chain, market, and nonmarket trends impacting clinical dermatology.","journal-title":"J Am Acad Dermatol","doi-asserted-by":"publisher"}],"short-title":[],"journal-issue":{"issue":"4","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2026,4,1]]}},"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"original-title":[],"container-title":["JAMA Dermatology"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2026,4,1]]},"reference-count":12,"published-online":null,"references-count":12,"short-container-title":["JAMA Dermatol"],"is-referenced-by-count":0},"unpaywall":{"doi":"10.1001/jamadermatol.2025.5912","is_oa":true,"title":"Development of a Patient Decision Aid for Atopic Dermatitis Systemic Treatments in Adults","updated":"2026-02-16T07:49:23+00:00","published_date":"2026-02-11","best_oa_location":{"url":"https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12895322/","pmh_id":"oai:pubmedcentral.nih.gov:12895322","url_for_pdf":null,"url_for_landing_page":"https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12895322/"}}},"created_at":"2026-05-14T13:22:42.083Z","updated_at":"2026-05-14T15:13:26.918Z","tags":[{"paper_doi":"10.1001/jamadermatol.2025.5912","tag_type":"age_group","value":"adult","value_numeric":null},{"paper_doi":"10.1001/jamadermatol.2025.5912","tag_type":"category","value":"Dermatology","value_numeric":null},{"paper_doi":"10.1001/jamadermatol.2025.5912","tag_type":"condition","value":"Atopic Dermatitis","value_numeric":null},{"paper_doi":"10.1001/jamadermatol.2025.5912","tag_type":"impact_flag","value":"confirms_prior","value_numeric":null},{"paper_doi":"10.1001/jamadermatol.2025.5912","tag_type":"impact_flag","value":"limited_evidence","value_numeric":null},{"paper_doi":"10.1001/jamadermatol.2025.5912","tag_type":"level_of_evidence","value":"5","value_numeric":null},{"paper_doi":"10.1001/jamadermatol.2025.5912","tag_type":"modality","value":"Shared Decision-Making Tool","value_numeric":null},{"paper_doi":"10.1001/jamadermatol.2025.5912","tag_type":"sample_size","value":"n=43","value_numeric":43},{"paper_doi":"10.1001/jamadermatol.2025.5912","tag_type":"sex","value":"mixed","value_numeric":null},{"paper_doi":"10.1001/jamadermatol.2025.5912","tag_type":"study_design","value":"Qualitative Study","value_numeric":null},{"paper_doi":"10.1001/jamadermatol.2025.5912","tag_type":"warning","value":"No quantitative clinical outcomes or effect sizes were reported.","value_numeric":null},{"paper_doi":"10.1001/jamadermatol.2025.5912","tag_type":"warning","value":"Qualitative tool-development study; standard study-design labels may not fit neatly.","value_numeric":null},{"paper_doi":"10.1001/jamadermatol.2025.5912","tag_type":"warning","value":"Sample size of n=43 is an approximation combining all steering group participants across phases (patients and clinicians); exact total may vary depending on whether individuals participated in multiple phases.","value_numeric":null},{"paper_doi":"10.1001/jamadermatol.2025.5912","tag_type":"warning","value":"Study design is labeled 'qualitative' by the authors; level of evidence set to 5 accordingly, but no formal evidence hierarchy exists for tool-development studies.","value_numeric":null},{"paper_doi":"10.1001/jamadermatol.2025.5912","tag_type":"warning","value":"The PDA itself is not reproduced in the abstract; clinical content details (specific drugs listed, decision logic) are not extractable from the available text.","value_numeric":null},{"paper_doi":"10.1001/jamadermatol.2025.5912","tag_type":"warning","value":"Total unique participant count is unclear because phases likely overlapped; only beta testers were confirmed as new.","value_numeric":null}],"summaries":{"what_studied":"A qualitative, single-center study (2020–2025) developed an IPDAS-adherent patient decision aid to help adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis choose systemic treatments. Input came from patients and dermatology clinicians across prototype (10 patients, 6 clinicians), alpha (8 patients, 5 clinicians), beta (8 new patients, 6 clinicians), and finalization (5 patients, 2 clinicians) phases.","key_result":"Patients favored transparent, organized visuals and plain language focused on efficacy, dosing frequency, route of administration, relevant adverse effects, and relative costs; clinicians prioritized laboratory monitoring, efficacy, and adverse effect data. The finalized tool used a staged approach to balance patient simplicity with clinician-level detail.","limitations":"Single-center qualitative design with small participant numbers in each phase. Demographic detail was provided only for the initial patient group (mean age 38.7 years [20–74]; 8 of 10 female).","practice_takeaway":"When counseling adults on systemic options for atopic dermatitis, use simple, organized visuals and plain language centered on efficacy, dosing, route, adverse effects, and relative costs, then layer in monitoring and other details as needed. A staged format can support patient comprehension while enabling clinician-led shared decision-making."}}],"initialOffset":2,"fetchConfig":{"kind":"tags","tags":[{"tag_type":"modality","value":"Shared Decision-Making Tool"}]},"breadcrumbItems":[{"name":"Home","href":"/"},{"name":"Research Hub","href":"/hub"},{"name":"Modalities","href":"/hub/tag/modality"},{"name":"Shared Decision-Making Tool"}],"hrefConfig":{"basePath":"/hub/papers","webViewQueryParams":{"hub_ctx":"tag","hub_tag_type":"modality","hub_tag_value":"Shared Decision-Making Tool"}}}]]

Papers