Page 88 - Shared Guideline Development Experiences in Fertility Care

Chapter 4
Table 4: Continued
Aspect of improvement
Content of the website
Clarity of the structure in which recommendations are placed on the website
Relationship between length and number of recommendations and their presentation on one screen
Education provision on the website
Characteristics of the wiki
Usability of wiki methodology
Respondents suggesting the aspect n%
Sample translated quotes from in-depth interviews (I)
and online questionnaires (Q)
I: Structure is good but the provided sections are incomplete, for example the care provided by a psychologist or other forms of mental counselling. Psychosocial concerns are always underestimated in fertility care
Q: e used structure is good, but for searching an existing recommendation it would be valuable to add a search function to the website
Q: ere are too many recommendations on the website I: Recommendations are too long, sometimes it’s more like a story, which is very interesting, but I wonder if the doctors are taking this as serious input to a guideline
Q: e prioritization is hard due to the large number of recommendations
Q: It might be valuable if the website provides usable links to high-quality websites
Q: Information on treatment options might enrich the website
Q: I would like to nd information on causal factors of infertility
Q: Practical information about compensations for treatment per insurance company, regional psychological services, plural miscarriages, infertility, and referral
Q: e website is not user friendly...the number of visible recommendations makes it unclear
Q: Recommendations given contain too many words
I: I really don’t have a clue about what constitutes a high- quality recommendation
I: It would be valuable to apply an automatic program, through which patients are able to formulate recommendations
Q: Prioritizing is hard and not e cient in this stage; the list of recommendations is too long
I: e e ciency might be improved if you ask patients immediately a er formulating a recommendation to prioritize the most important recommendations
Q: Nonattractive/not a modern/not a fashionable website Q: e layout is not from today
Q: Looks unprofessional
Q: is good initiative requires a better marketing approach to reach more participants
I: More communication on related activities and results will increase the number of patients that will come back Q: E ect of the recommendations on the guideline is unclear
Accessibility of wiki methodology
E ciency of wiki methodology
Layout of the website
Impression of the layout
5
33
Communication with wiki users
Marketing
Community feeling of the wiki
6 3
30
32
19
6
66%
71%
42%
13%
11%
73%
13% 6%
a45 participants completed the online evaluation questionnaire, of whom 3 participated in the in-depth interviews.
86