What older adults and their caregivers need for making better health-related decisions at home: a participatory mixed methods protocol

Claudia Lai, Paul Holyoke, Karine V Plourde, Simon Décary, France Légaré, Claudia Lai, Paul Holyoke, Karine V Plourde, Simon Décary, France Légaré

Abstract

Introduction: Shared decision making is an interpersonal process whereby healthcare providers collaborate with and support patients in decision-making. Older adults receiving home care need support with decision-making. We will explore what older adults receiving home care and their caregivers need for making better health-related decisions.

Methods and analysis: This two-phase sequential exploratory mixed methods study will be conducted in a pan-Canadian healthcare organisation, SE Health. First, we will create a participant advisory group to advise us throughout the research process. In phase 1 (qualitative), we will recruit a convenience sample of 15-30 older adults and caregivers receiving home care to participate in open-ended semi-structured interviews. Phase 1 participants will be invited to share what health-related decisions they face at home and what they need for making better decisions. In phase 2 (quantitative), interdisciplinary health and social care providers will be invited to answer a web-based survey to share their views on the decisional needs of older adults and their caregivers. The survey will include questions informed by findings from qualitative interviews in phase 1, and a workbook for assessing decisional needs based on the Ottawa Decision Support Framework. Finally, qualitative and quantitative results will be triangulated (by methods, investigator, theory and source) to develop a comprehensive understanding of decision-making needs from the perspective of older adults, caregivers and health and social care providers. We will use the quality of mixed methods studies in health services research guidelines and the Checklist for Reporting the Results of Internet E-Surveys checklist.

Ethics and dissemination: Ethics approval was obtained from the research ethics boards at Southlake Regional Health Centre and Université Laval. This study will inform the design of decision support interventions. Further dissemination plans include summary briefs for study participants, tailored reports for home care decision makers and policy makers, and peer-reviewed publications.

Trial registration number: NCT04327830.

Keywords: epidemiology; geriatric medicine; primary care.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: This study will be conducted in SE Health, one of the largest social enterprises offering home care services across Canada.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study design. ANOVA, analysis of variance.

References

    1. Statistics Canada Home health care and related services [online]. Ottawa: Statitics Canada, 2017.
    1. Canadian Institute for Health Information Home care expenditures in the NHEX Database [Technical note on the online]. Ottawa: Canadian Institute for Health Information, 2017.
    1. Statistics Canada Home health care and related services [online]. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 2017.
    1. Garvelink MM, Jones CA, Archambault PM, et al. . Deciding how to stay independent at home in later years: development and acceptability testing of an informative web-based module. JMIR Hum Factors 2017;4:e32. 10.2196/humanfactors.8387
    1. Hoffmann T, Jansen J, Glasziou P. The importance and challenges of shared decision making in older people with multimorbidity. PLoS Med 2018;15:e1002530. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002530
    1. Garvelink MM, Groen-van de Ven L, Smits C, et al. . Shared decision making about housing transitions for persons with dementia: a four-case care network perspective. Gerontologist 2019;59:822–34. 10.1093/geront/gny073
    1. Légaré F, Moumjid-Ferdjaoui N, Drolet R, et al. . Core competencies for shared decision making training programs: insights from an international, interdisciplinary working group. J Contin Educ Health Prof 2013;33:267–73. 10.1002/chp.21197
    1. Légaré F, Witteman HO. Shared decision making: examining key elements and barriers to adoption into routine clinical practice. Health Aff 2013;32:276–84. 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1078
    1. Hibbard JH, Greene J. What the evidence shows about patient activation: better health outcomes and care experiences; fewer data on costs. Health Aff 2013;32:207–14. 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1061
    1. Shay LA, Lafata JE. Where is the evidence? A systematic review of shared decision making and patient outcomes. Med Decis Making 2015;35:114–31. 10.1177/0272989X14551638
    1. Veroff D, Marr A, Wennberg DE. Enhanced support for shared decision making reduced costs of care for patients with preference-sensitive conditions. Health Aff 2013;32:285–93. 10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0941
    1. Garvelink MM, Ngangue PAG, 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 2016;35:619–26. 10.1377/hlthaff.2015.1375
    1. Kim J, Parish AL. Polypharmacy and medication management in older adults. Nurs Clin North Am 2017;52:457–68. 10.1016/j.cnur.2017.04.007
    1. Maher RL, Hanlon J, Hajjar ER. Clinical consequences of polypharmacy in elderly. Expert Opin Drug Saf 2014;13:57–65. 10.1517/14740338.2013.827660
    1. Bunn F, Goodman C, Russell B, et al. . Supporting shared decision making for older people with multiple health and social care needs: a realist synthesis. BMC Geriatr 2018;18:165. 10.1186/s12877-018-0853-9
    1. Dogba MJ, Menear M, Stacey D, et al. . The evolution of an interprofessional shared decision-making research program: reflective case study of an emerging paradigm. Int J Integr Care 2016;16:4. 10.5334/ijic.2212
    1. Légaré F, Stacey D, Brière 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. 10.1186/1472-6963-11-23
    1. Légaré F, Brière N, Stacey D, et al. . Implementing shared decision-making in interprofessional home care teams (the IPSDM-SW study): protocol for a stepped wedge cluster randomised trial. BMJ Open 2016;6:e014023. 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014023
    1. Adekpedjou R, Haesebaert J, Stacey D, et al. . Variations in factors associated with healthcare providers’ intention to engage in interprofessional shared decision making in home care: results of two cross-sectional surveys. BMC Health Serv Res 2020;20:203. 10.1186/s12913-020-5064-3
    1. Haesebaert J, Adekpedjou R, Croteau J, et al. . Shared decision-making experienced by Canadians facing health care decisions: a web-based survey. CMAJ Open 2019;7:E210–6. 10.9778/cmajo.20180202
    1. Jacobsen MJ, O’Connor A, Stacey D. Decisional needs assessment in populations: a workbook for assessing patients’ and practitioners’ decision making needs [online]. Ottawa: University of Ottawa, 2013.
    1. Poitras M-E, Hudon C, Godbout I, et al. . Decisional needs assessment of patients with complex care needs in primary care. J Eval Clin Pract 2020;26:1–14. 10.1111/jep.13325
    1. Blumenthal-Barby JS, Kostick KM, Delgado ED, et al. . Assessment of patients’ and caregivers’ informational and decisional needs for left ventricular assist device placement: implications for informed consent and shared decision-making. J Heart Lung Transplant 2015;34:S336. 10.1016/j.healun.2015.01.955
    1. Loiselle M-C, Michaud C, O’Connor A. Decisional needs assessment to help patients with advanced chronic kidney disease make better dialysis choices. Nephrol Nurs J 2016;43:463.
    1. Tan J, Stacey D, Fung K, et al. . Treatment decision needs of psoriasis patients: cross-sectional survey. J Cutan Med Surg 2010;14:233–9. 10.2310/7750.2010.09049
    1. Hoefel L, O’Connor AM, Lewis KB, et al. . 20th anniversary update of the Ottawa decision support framework Part 1: a systematic review of the decisional needs of people making health or social decisions. Med Decis Making 2020;40:555–81. 10.1177/0272989X20936209
    1. Creswell JW. Mixed methods procedures : Research design. 3rd edn Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2008: 203–24.
    1. O’Cathain A, Murphy E, Nicholl J. The quality of mixed methods studies in health services research. J Health Serv Res Policy 2008;13:92–8. 10.1258/jhsrp.2007.007074
    1. Eysenbach G. Improving the quality of web surveys: the checklist for reporting results of Internet E-Surveys (cherries). J Med Internet Res 2004;6:e34. 10.2196/jmir.6.3.e34
    1. Mertens DM. Transformative mixed methods research. Qualitat Inquiry 2010;16:469–74. 10.1177/1077800410364612
    1. Mertens DM. Transformative mixed methods. Am Behav Sci 2012;56:802–13. 10.1177/0002764211433797
    1. Emanuel EJ, Emanuel LL. Four models of the physician-patient relationship. JAMA 1992;267:2221–6. 10.1001/jama.1992.03480160079038
    1. Veinot T. Power to the patient? A critical examination of patient empowerment discourses : Harris R, Wathen N, Wyatt S, Configuring health consumers: Health work and imperative of personal responsibility. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.
    1. Chang Y-P, Schneider JK, Sessanna L. Decisional conflict among Chinese family caregivers regarding nursing home placement of older adults with dementia. J Aging Stud 2011;25:436–44. 10.1016/j.jaging.2011.05.001
    1. Jull J, Giles A, Boyer Y, et al. . The aboriginal women’s support center, boyer Y, and stacey D. Cultural adaptation of a shared decision making tool with Aboriginal women: a qualitative study. BMC Med Inform Decision Making 2015;15:1.
    1. Jackson KM, Pukys S, Castro A, et al. . Using the transformative paradigm to conduct a mixed methods needs assessment of a marginalized community: methodological lessons and implications. Eval Program Plann 2018;66:111–9. 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2017.09.010
    1. CIHR Strategy for patient oriented research [online]. Available: [Accessed 10 Feb 2020].
    1. Jennings H, Slade M, Bates P, et al. . Best practice framework for patient and public involvement (PPi) in collaborative data analysis of qualitative mental health research: methodology development and refinement. BMC Psychiatry 2018;18:213. 10.1186/s12888-018-1794-8
    1. Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. 2nd SAGE. Thousand Oaks, CA 1994.
    1. Guest G, Bunce A, Johnson L. How many interviews are enough? Field methods 2006;18:59–82. 10.1177/1525822X05279903
    1. Saunders B, Sim J, Kingstone T, et al. . Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Qual Quant 2018;52:1893–907. 10.1007/s11135-017-0574-8
    1. Patton MQ. Qualitative research & evaluation methods. 3rd edn Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2002.
    1. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 2006;3:77–101. 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
    1. Carter N, Bryant-Lukosius D, DiCenso A, et al. . The use of triangulation in qualitative research. Oncol Nurs Forum 2014;41:545–7. 10.1188/14.ONF.545-547

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores y Colaboradores

Condiciones médicas

Intervenciones de drogas

3
Suscribir