Purpose To enhance shared decision-making in the context of thyroid surgery for low-risk cancer, this study aims to assess the acceptability and usability of decision aids (DAs). This is a key step in the systematic development of a DA as per International Patient Decision Aid Standards and seeks to refine and optimize it, ultimately improving the quality of patient engagement and outcomes in the management of low-risk thyroid cancer. Methodology We employed a mixed methods approach to assess a DA for thyroid surgery consideration. Post-consultation, patients gave feedback on both paper and web-based DAs through an online survey measuring acceptability and decisional conflict. A working group refined the DAs based on feedback from at least 5-7 patients per cycle, repeating this process three times to create prototype versions. Focus group meetings are planned that will gather diverse perspectives on the prototype, ensuring comprehensive assessment and refinement. Results Out of the 12 patients who completed the paper DA survey, 10 rated its sections as excellent or good (84%), while all 7 patients who completed the web DA survey gave it a favourable rating of excellent or good (100%).On a scale of 0 to 100, where 0 signifies no decisional conflict and 100 suggests extremely high conflict, the paper DA scored a mean (SD) of 18(15.3), and the web DA scored 14.7(11.25). These scores indicate low decisional conflict, demonstrating effective support for decision-making in both cases. Conclusion The study revealed high acceptability and low decisional conflict in both prototype paper and web-based DAs for thyroid surgery, emphasizing their potential to improve shared decision-making in low-risk thyroid cancer management.