The results illustrate how developers can tailor PtDAs using dynamic and interactive processes. We used a PtDA in development for patients with obstructive sleep apnea which is designed Epacadostat to assist patients choice between three options: (i) Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP), a machine that pushes a stream of air through a mask into a patient’s nose or mouth to keep his throat and airway open; (ii) a Mandibular Advancement Splint (MAS), a type of mouthguard that helps to keep the patient’s throat open; and (iii) no treatment, or not adhering to using either CPAP or MAS. A recent review concluded that “the decision as to whether to use CPAP or MAS will likely depend on patient preference” [16]. We

invited members of an online panel to imagine they had been diagnosed with sleep apnea and were to use the PtDA to help their physician prescribe the most appropriate treatment option. They were told that adherence to these treatments was a particular concern, and so personal preferences were important to making treatment decisions. The PtDA broadly followed the IPDAS guidelines [17], explaining the condition, providing information about options and their

www.selleckchem.com/products/Vorinostat-saha.html characteristics (benefits, side-effects, costs, etc.) using probabilities and pictographs to describe baseline and incremental absolute risks where appropriate, a value clarification exercise, and a summary of information to help the patient deliberate on the decision along with an opportunity to select the preferred option. Given the hypothetical nature of the exercise, we did not include guidance

on next steps or on ways to discuss options with others, which would typically be included in a PtDA. Respondents were Ureohydrolase randomized to three different versions of the PtDA: (1) conventional group, where the order of the information was pre-specified with benefits listed first, followed by side-effects, and then costs; (2) recency group, where information was ordered based on the results of a value clarification exercise, so that what a given respondent valued most was listed last; and (3) primacy group, where information again was ordered according to values, so that what a respondent valued most was listed first. The information contained in all three versions was identical, but the order in which information was displayed varied. We asked respondents questions about their preferred option and asked them to assign values to the attributes associated with each option. As a result we were able to determine the proportion of respondents who chose the option concordant with their own values. After completing consent, participants were informed that the survey was for improving an educational tool for patients with sleep apnea. They were then given information about sleep apnea so they could imagine that it would be like to have the condition. A simple test, referred to as a “catch trial”, was used to ensure they had paid attention to the information page.