Browsing by Author "Moberg, Jenny"

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Correction to: Users’ experiences with an interactive Evidence to Decision (iEtD) framework: a qualitative analysis
    (2021) Meneses-Echavez, José Francisco; Rosenbaum, Sarah; Rada G., Gabriel; Flottorp, Signe; Moberg, Jenny; Alonso Coello, Pablo; Meneses-Echavez, José Francisco; Rosenbaum, Sarah; Rada G., Gabriel; Flottorp, Signe; Moberg, Jenny; Alonso Coello, Pablo
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Marcos GRADE de la evidencia a la decisión (EtD) : un enfoque sistemático y transparente para tomar decisiones sanitarias bien informadas. 1: Introducción
    (2018) Alonso Coello, Pablo; Schünemann, Holger J.; Moberg, Jenny; Brignardello Petersen, Romina; Akl, Elie A.; Davoli, Marina; Treweek, Shaun; Mustafa, Reem A.; Rada G., Gabriel; Rosenbaum, Sarah; Morellid, Angela; Guyattbc, Gordon H.; Oxman, Andrew D.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework for health system and public health decisions
    (2018) Moberg, Jenny; Oxman, Andrew D.; Rosenbaum, Sarah; Schünemann, Holger J.; Guyatt, Gordon; Flottorp, Signe; Glenton, Claire; Lewin, Simon; Morelli, Angela; Rada G., Gabriel; Alonso-Coello, Pablo
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Users’ experiences with an interactive Evidence to Decision (iEtD) framework: a qualitative analysis
    (2021) Meneses-Echavez, José Francisco; Rosenbaum, Sarah; Rada G., Gabriel; Flottorp, Signe; Moberg, Jenny; Alonso-Coello, Pablo
    Abstract: Background: Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks bring clarity, structure and transparency to health care decision making. The interactive Evidence to Decision (iEtD) tool, developed in the context of the DECIDE project and published by Epistemonikos, is a stand-alone online solution for producing and using EtD frameworks. Since its development, little is known about how organizations have been using the iEtD tool and what characterizes users’ experiences with it. This missing information is necessary for any teams planning future developments of the iEtD tool. Methods: This study aimed to describe users’ experiences with the iEtD and identify main barriers and facilitators related to use. We contacted all users registered in the iEtD via email and invited people who identified themselves as having used the solution to a semi-structured interview. Audio recordings were transcribed, and one researcher conducted a directed content analysis of the interviews guided by a user experience framework. Two researchers checked the content independently for accuracy. Results: Out of 860 people contacted, 81 people replied to our introductory email (response rate 9.4%). Twenty of these had used the tool in a real scenario and were invited to an interview. We interviewed all eight users that accepted this invitation (from six countries, four continents). ‘Guideline development’ was the iEtD use scenario they most commonly identified. Most participants reported an overall positive experience, without major difficulties navigating or using the different sections. They reported having used most of the EtD framework criteria. Participants reported tailoring their frameworks, for instance by adding or deleting criteria, translating to another language, or rewording headings. Several people preferred to produce a Word version rather than working online, due to the burden of completing the framework, or lack of experience with the tool. Some reported difficulties working with the exportable formats, as they needed considerable editing. Conclusion: A very limited number of guideline developers have used the iEtD tool published by Epistemonikos since its development. Although users’ general experiences are positive, our work has identified some aspects of the tool that need improvement. Our findings could be also applied to development or improvement of other solutions for producing or using EtD frameworks.