Page 87 - Shared Guideline Development Experiences in Fertility Care

In-Depth Interviews
Overall, 11 of the 30 patients who gave their email address in the evaluation questionnaire agreed to participate in the interviews. We conducted 3 interviews. All 3 interviews con rmed barriers to adoption as well as suggestions to improve the wiki, and saturation of the related underlying thoughts was reached (Table 4). All patients reported problems with formulating a recommendation and expressed their wish to add a personal touch to the recommendation (e.g., to explain why something should be done). e introduction of a motivation page, where patients are able to describe why they formulated a recommendation might meet this request. Patients also embraced the missing community feeling as mentioned in the evaluation questionnaire. Introducing a monthly newsletter and automatically sending an email to the person who made the recommendation were suggested.
Table 4: Participants’ (n = 45a) suggestions for improving the wiki website.
Wiki for patient participation
Aspect of improvement Respondents
suggesting in-depth interviews (I)
Sample translated quotes from 4 and online questionnaires (Q)
Q: Hard to nd
Q: I think it is awkward that the website is only ndable through the Freya website
I: I wouldn’t know how to nd the website, unless through the Freya website
I: I was unable to nd the log-in location or request a new password
Q: Unclear
I: e description is a bit unclear; therefore, I previously thought to check it more precisely, but I still haven’t done this
I: I had not concluded that the recommendations were directly integrated in a professional guideline
I: but there are recommendations I am not satis ed with, I would suggest that participants can prioritize recommendations that they are satis ed with in
an earlier stage, then you only have to list the most important recommendations in one screen
Q: I would like to see why a speci c recommendation was formulated, separately from the recommendation
I: ere are too many recommendations on the website, but there are recommendations I am not satis ed
with. I would suggest that participants can prioritize recommendations that they are satis ed with
Usability of the website
the aspect n%
Findability of the website 10 22%
Accessibility of the website 2 4%
Content of the website
Comprehensiveness of 1 2% clarifying text
Clearness of description of 4 8% the goal of the wiki
Clearness of instructions 1 2% for use
Satisfaction 8 16% with formulated
recommendations
Similarity between 4 8% actual preferences and recommendations
85