TY - JOUR T1 - Informed decision making on the uptake of evidence-based smoking cessation assistance: A needs assessment among end users and experts to inform decision aid development JF - medRxiv DO - 10.1101/2021.04.09.21255012 SP - 2021.04.09.21255012 AU - Thomas Gültzow AU - Eline Suzanne Smit AU - Raesita Hudales AU - Carmen D. Dirksen AU - Ciska Hoving Y1 - 2021/01/01 UR - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/04/13/2021.04.09.21255012.abstract N2 - Introduction Evidence-based cessation assistance is known to increase cessation rates. Activating personal preferences as part of the decision for smoking cessation assistance tools could further improve tools’ effectiveness. Decision aids (DAs) help individuals to choose amongst the various options by taking these preferences into account and, therefore, could have a positive effect on cessation rates. To develop attractive and effective DAs, potential end users’ needs, and experts’ viewpoints should be considered during development processes. Therefore, the aim of this study was: (1) To explore smokers’ needs and viewpoints regarding a smoking cessation assistance DA, and (2) to obtain consensus among smoking cessation counsellors and scientific experts about the content and format of such a DA.Materials and methods Data was gathered via two approaches applied across three studies: (1) 20 semi-structured interviews with potential end users, (2) two three-round Delphi studies with 61 smoking cessation counsellors and 44 scientific experts. Data from the interviews and the first round of the Delphi studies were analysed qualitatively using the Framework method, while data from the second and third round of the Delphi studies were analysed quantitatively using medians and interquartile ranges.Results Potential end users reported to acquire information in different ways: Via own experiences, their social environment, and the media. Important characteristics to decide between tools also varied, however effectiveness and costs were commonly reported as the most important characteristics. The experts reached consensus on 38 (smoking cessation counsellors) and 40 (scientific experts) statements regarding important cessation assistance tools’ characteristics and their viewpoints on a smoking cessation assistance DA, e.g., that a tool should be appropriate for users’ level of addiction.Discussion and conclusion Some clear trends emerged among the potential end users (especially regarding important characteristics). Experts also reached consensus among a number of statements. However, there was some variation in the needs and wishes among the (different) stakeholders. The combination of these studies highlights that a ‘one size fits all’ approach is not desirable. In the development of DAs, this heterogeneity should be taken into account, e.g., by enabling users to customize a DA based on their personal preferences while safeguarding essential elements.HighlightsPotential end users’ needs for a smoking cessation DA vary greatlyHowever, tools’ effectiveness and costs were commonly named as importantCustomizable elements within a DA could be used to deal with this heterogeneityConceptualizations (e.g., of effectiveness) may vary between stakeholdersInformation should be provided to end users in an easily understandable mannerCompeting Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis work was supported by a grant from the Dutch Cancer Society (UM2015-7744).Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Evaluation of this project by the Medical Ethics Committee METC Z (16-N-227) revealed that this project did not require medical ethics approval under the rules of the Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (WMO).All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesDue to the qualitative nature of the data reported in this article, we have decided not to make the data publicly available.DADecision AidIPDASInternational Patient Decision Aid StandardsOSFOpen Science Framework ER -