Development of a decision guide to support the elderly in decision making about location of care: an iterative, user-centered design

Mirjam M Garvelink, Julie Emond, Matthew Menear, Nathalie Brière, Adriana Freitas, Laura Boland, Maria Margarita Becerra Perez, Louisa Blair, Dawn Stacey, France Légaré, Mirjam M Garvelink, Julie Emond, Matthew Menear, Nathalie Brière, Adriana Freitas, Laura Boland, Maria Margarita Becerra Perez, Louisa Blair, Dawn Stacey, France Légaré

Abstract

Plain english summary: For the elderly to get the care and services they need, they may need to make the difficult decision about staying in their home or moving to another home. Many other people may be involved in their care too (friends, family and healthcare providers), and can support them in making the decision. We asked informal caregivers of elderly people to help us develop a decision guide to support them and their loved ones in making this decision. This guide will be used by health providers in home care who are trained to help people make decisions. The guide is in French and English. To design and test this decision guide we involved elderly people, their caregivers and health administrators. We first asked them what they needed for making the decision, and then designed a first version of the guide. Then we asked them to look at it and give feedback, which was used to make the final version. We then used scientific criteria to check its content and the language used. The final decision guide was acceptable to the caregivers, their elderly loved ones, and the health administrators. The guide is currently being evaluated in a large research project with home care teams in the province of Quebec.

Abstract: Background As they grow older, many elderly people are faced with the difficult and preference-sensitive decision about staying in their home or moving to a residence better adapted to their evolving care needs. We aimed to develop an English and French decision aid (DA) for elderly people facing this decision, and to involve end-users in all phases of the development process. Methods A three-cycle design with involvement of end-users in Quebec. End-users were elderly people (n = 4) caregivers of the elderly (n = 5), health administrators involved in home-care service delivery or policy (n = 6) and an interprofessional research team (n = 19). Cycle 1: Decisional needs assessment and development of the first prototype based on existing tools and input from end-users; overview of reviews examining the impact of location of care on elderly people's health outcomes. Cycle 2: Usability testing with end-users, adaptation of prototype. Cycle 3: Refinement of the prototype with a linguist, graphic designer and end-users. The final prototype underwent readability testing and an International Patient Decision Aids (IPDAS) criteria compatibility assessment to verify minimal requirements for decision aids and was tested for usability by the elderly. ResultsCycle 1: We used the Ottawa Personal Decision Guide to design a first prototype. As the overview of reviews did not find definitive evidence regarding optimal locations of care for elderly people, we were not able to add evidence-based advantages and disadvantages to the guide. Cycle 2: Overall, the caregivers and health administrators who evaluated the prototype (n = 10) were positive. In response to their suggestions, we deleted some elements (overview of pros, cons, and consequences of the options) that were necessary to qualify the tool as a DA and renamed it a "decision guide". Cycle 3: We developed French and English versions of the guide, readable at a primary school level. The elderly judged the guide as acceptable. Conclusion We developed a decision guide to support elderly people and their caregivers in decision making about location of care. This paper is one of few to report on a fully collaborative approach to decision guide development that involves end-users at every stage (caregivers and health administrators early on, the frail elderly in the final stages). The guide is currently being evaluated in a cluster randomized trial. Trial registration: NCT02244359.

Keywords: Caregivers; Decision aids; Elderly; End-user involvement; Location of care; Shared decision making.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Examples of some pages of the decision guide (English): a Front page; b Explore your options; c Options; d Weigh pros and cons

References

    1. Gouvernement Canada. (Statistics Canada). Available at: . Accessed December, 2015.
    1. United Nations. Department of International Economic and Social Affairs. Population Division. World Population Ageing 2013. New York: United Nations; 2013.
    1. Caron CD, Ducharme F, Griffith J. Deciding on institutionalization for a relative with dementia: the most difficult decision for caregivers. Can J Aging. 2006;25(2):193–205. doi: 10.1353/cja.2006.0033.
    1. Legare F, Briere N, Stacey D, et al. Improving decision making on location of care with the frail elderly and their caregivers (the DOLCE study): study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2015;16(1):567. doi: 10.1186/s13063-015-0567-7.
    1. Towle A, Greenhalgh T, Gambrill J, Godolphin W. Framework for teaching and learning informed shared decision making. BMJ. 1999;319:766–71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.319.7212.766.
    1. Legare F, Stacey D, Pouliot S, et al. Interprofessionalism and shared decision-making in primary care: a stepwise approach towards a new model. J Interprof Care. 2011;25(1):18–25. doi: 10.3109/13561820.2010.490502.
    1. Légaré F, Stacey D, Brière N, et al. An interprofessional approach to shared decision making: an exploratory case study with family caregivers of one IP home care team. BMC Geriatr. 2014;14:83. doi: 10.1186/1471-2318-14-83.
    1. Legare F, Stacey D, Gagnon S, et al. Validating a conceptual model for an inter-professional approach to shared decision making: a mixed methods study. J Eval Clin Pract. 2011;17(4):554–564. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01515.x.
    1. Legare F, Labrecque M, Cauchon M, Castel J, Turcotte S, Grimshaw J. Training family physicians in shared decision-making to reduce the overuse of antibiotics in acute respiratory infections: a cluster randomized trial. CMAJ. 2012;184(13):E726–734. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.120568.
    1. Stacey D, Legare F, Col NF, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;1:CD001431.
    1. Legare F, Stacey D, Graham ID, et al. Advancing theories, models and measurement for an interprofessional approach to shared decision making in primary care: a study protocol. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8:2. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-8-2.
    1. Legare F, Stacey D, Briere N, et al. A conceptual framework for interprofessional shared decision making in home care: protocol for a feasibility study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11:23. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-11-23.
    1. De Vito Dabbs A, Myers BA, Mc Curry KR, et al. User-centered design and interactive health technologies for patients. Comput Inform Nurs. 2009;27(3):175. doi: 10.1097/NCN.0b013e31819f7c7c.
    1. Witteman H, Dansokho S, Colquhoun H, et al. User-centered design and the development of patient decision aids: protocol for a systematic review. Systematic Reviews. 2015;4(1):11. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-4-11.
    1. Elwyn G, O’Connor A, Stacey D, et al. Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. BMJ. 2006;333(7565):417. doi: 10.1136/.
    1. Joseph-Williams N, Newcombe R, Politi M, et al. Toward minimum standards for certifying patient decision aids: a modified Delphi consensus process. Med Decis Mak. 2014;34(6):699–710. doi: 10.1177/0272989X13501721.
    1. Lemieux V. Pour qu’on se comprenne: Guide de littératie en santé. Montréal: Direction de santé publique, Agence de la santé et des services sociaux de Montréal; 2014.
    1. Canadian Public Health Association, National Literacy and Health Program. Good medicine for seniors: guidelines for plain language and good design in prescription medication. Ottawa: Canadian Public Health Association; 2002.
    1. Coulter A, Stilwell D, Kryworuchko J, Mullen P, Ng C, van der Weijden T. A systematic development process for patient decision aids. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13(Suppl 2):S2. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-13-S2-S2.
    1. Murray M. When you need extra care, should you receive it at home or in a facility? 2010.
    1. US Department of Veteran Affairs. Veteran shared decision making worksheet (Geriatrics and Extended Care). VA Healthcare; 2014. .
    1. Healthwise Staff. Alzheimer’s or other dementia: Should I move my relative into long-term care? Government of British Columbia; 2012.
    1. Adekpedjou R, Stacey D, Brière N, et al. Decision-making outcomes about relocation among the frail elderly and their caregivers: a cross-sectional survey. TVN annual conference, 27-29 September 2015; Toronto.
    1. Garvelink MM, Ngangue PA, Adekpedjou R, et al. A synthesis of knowledge about caregiver decision making finds gaps in support for those who care for aging loved ones. Health Aff (Millwood) 2016;35(4):619–626. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2015.1375.
    1. Becerra Pérez MM, Émond J, Boland L, et al. Location of care impact on frail elderly and caregiver health outcomes: preliminary results of an umbrella review of systematic reviews. Technology Evaluation in the Elderly Network (TVN), 2nd Annual TVN conference, September 21-23 2014; Toronto, Canada (poster presentation 22 September).
    1. Mottram P, Pitkala K, Lees C. Institutional versus at-home long term care for functionally dependent older people. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002;1:CD003542.
    1. Kasper J, Hoffmann F, Heesen C, Kopke S, Geiger F. Completing the third person’s perspective on patients’ involvement in medical decision-making: approaching the full picture. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2012;106(4):275–283. doi: 10.1016/j.zefq.2012.04.005.
    1. O’Connor AM, Stacey D, Jacobsen MJ, Ottawa Decision Support Tutorial (ODST). Improving practitioners’ decision support skills. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute: Patient Decision Aids. 2011.
    1. O’Connor AM, Stacey D, Jacobsen MJ. Ottawa personal decision guide. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute: Patient Decision Aids. 2012.
    1. Arimori N. Randomized controlled trial of decision aids for women considering prenatal testing: The effect of the Ottawa Personal Decision Guide on decisional conflict. Jpn J Nurs Sci. 2006;3(2):119–130. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-7924.2006.00062.x.
    1. Feenstra B, Lawson ML, Harrison D, Boland L, Stacey D. Decision coaching using the Ottawa family decision guide with parents and their children: a field testing study. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2015;15:5. doi: 10.1186/s12911-014-0126-2.
    1. Graham I, Logan J, Harrison M, et al. Lost in Knowledge Translation: Time For A Map? J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2006;26(1):13. doi: 10.1002/chp.47.
    1. Durand MA, Witt J, Joseph-Williams N, et al. Minimum standards for the certification of patient decision support interventions: Feasibility and application. Patient Educ Couns. 2014;98(4):462–8. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2014.12.009.
    1. Ochocka J, Moorlag E, Janzen R. A framework for entry: PAR values and engagement strategies in community research. Gateways: International Journal of Community Research and Engagement. 2010;3(0):1–19.
    1. van der Weijden T, Legare F, Boivin A, et al. How to integrate individual patient values and preferences in clinical practice guidelines? A research protocol. Implement Sci. 2010;5:10. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-5-10.
    1. McNeil H, Elliott J, Ashbourne J, Heckman G, Walker J, Stolee P. Engaging older adults in healthcare research and planning: a realist synthesis. Research Involvement and Engagement. 2016;2:10. doi: 10.1186/s40900-016-0022-2.
    1. Frey R, Hertwig R, Herzog SM. Surrogate decision making: do we have to trade off accuracy and procedural satisfaction? Med Decis Mak. 2014;34(2):258–269. doi: 10.1177/0272989X12471729.
    1. Dubois MF, Dubuc N, Caron CD, Raiche M, Hebert R. Is there agreement between Canadian older adults and their primary informal caregivers on behaviour towards institutionalisation? Health Soc Care Community. 2009;17(6):610–618. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2524.2009.00862.x.
    1. Lee CN, Hultman CS, Sepucha K. Do patients and providers agree about the most important facts and goals for breast reconstruction decisions? Ann Plast Surg. 2010;64(5):563–566.
    1. Fleurence RL, Forsythe LP, Lauer M, et al. Engaging patients and stakeholders in research proposal review: the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute engaging patients and stakeholders in research proposal review. Ann Intern Med. 2014;161(2):122–30. doi: 10.7326/M13-2412.
    1. Savage TA, Parson J, Zollman F, Kirschner KL. Rehabilitation team disagreement: guidelines for resolution. PM & R. 2009;1(12):1091–1097. doi: 10.1016/j.pmrj.2009.09.017.
    1. Boote J, Baird W, Beecroft C. Public involvement at the design stage of primary health research: a narrative review of case examples. Health Policy. 2010;95(1):10–23. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2009.11.007.

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren