Refine
Document Type
- Article (2)
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
Language
- English (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3)
Keywords
- Patient preferences (3) (remove)
Institute
Publisher
Background
Person-Centered-Care (PCC) requires knowledge about patient preferences. Among People-living-with-Dementia (PlwD) data on quantitative, choice-based preferences, which would allow to quantify, weigh and rank patient-relevant elements of dementia-care, and identify most/least preferred choices, are limited. The Analytic-Hierarchy-Process (AHP) may be one approach to elicit quantitative, choice-based preferences with PlwD, due to simple pairwise comparisons of individual criteria from a complex decision-problem, e.g. health care decisions. Furthermore, data on congruence of patient preferences with physicians’ judgements for PCC are missing. If patient preferences and physicians’ judgements differ, provision of PCC becomes unlikely. An understanding of patient preferences compared to physician’s judgements will support the implementation of truly PCC, i.e. state of the art dementia-care aligned with patient preferences.
Methods
This mixed-methods-study will be based on the results from a previous systematic review and conducted in three phases: (I) literature-based key intervention-categories of PCC will be investigated during qualitative interviews with Dementia-Care-Managers (DCMs) and PlwD to identify actually patient-relevant (sub) criteria of PCC; (II) based on findings from phase I, an AHP-survey will be designed and pre-tested for face- and content-validity, and consistency during face-to-face “thinking-aloud”-interviews with PlwD and two expert panels (DCMs and physicians); (III) the developed survey will elicit patient preferences and physicians’ judgements for PCC. To assess individual importance weights for (sub) criteria in both groups, the Principal-Eigenvector-Method will be applied. Weights will be aggregated per group by Aggregation-of-Individual-Priorities-mode. Descriptive and interferential statistical analyses will be conducted to assess congruence of importance-weights between groups. Subgroup-analyses shall investigate participant-heterogeneities, sensitivity of AHP-results shall be tested by inclusion/exclusion of inconsistent respondents.
Discussion
Little research is published on quantitative, choice-based preferences in dementia care. We expect that (1) PlwD have preferences and can express these, (2) that the AHP is a suitable technique to elicit quantitative, choice-based preferences among PlwD, and (3) to identify a divergence between patient preferences and physicians’ judgements for PCC. With the help of the AHP-technique, which supports systematic decision-making including multiple criteria, it may be possible to involve PlwD in future care decisions (patient participation) and ensure implementation of truly Person-Centered-Dementia-Care.
Trial registration
Approval of the study was granted by the Ethics Committee at the University Medicine Greifswald the 09Apr2021 (Reg.-Nr.: BB 018–21, BB 018-21a, BB 018-21b).
Background
Data collected during routine health care and ensuing analytical results bear the potential to provide valuable information to improve the overall health care of patients. However, little is known about how patients prefer to be informed about the possible usage of their routine data and/or biosamples for research purposes before reaching a consent decision. Specifically, we investigated the setting, the timing and the responsible staff for the information and consent process.
Methods
We performed a quasi-randomized controlled trial and compared the method by which patients were informed either in the patient admission area following patient admission by the same staff member (Group A) or in a separate room by another staff member (Group B). The consent decision was hypothetical in nature. Additionally, we evaluated if there was the need for additional time after the information session and before taking the consent decision. Data were collected during a structured interview based on questionnaires where participants reflected on the information and consent process they went through.
Results
Questionnaire data were obtained from 157 participants in Group A and 106 participants in Group B. Overall, participants in both groups were satisfied with their experienced process and with the way information was provided. They reported that their (hypothetical) consent decision was freely made. Approximately half of the interested participants in Group B did not show up in the separate room, while all interested participants in Group A could be informed about the secondary use of their routine data and left-over samples. No participants, except for one in Group B, wanted to take extra time for their consent decision. The hypothetical consent rate for both routine data and left-over samples was very high in both groups.
Conclusions
The willingness to support medical research by allowing the use of routine data and left-over samples seems to be widespread among patients. Information concerning this secondary data use may be given by trained administrative staff immediately following patient admission. Patients mainly prefer making a consent decision directly after information is provided and discussed. Furthermore, less patients are informed when the process is organized in a separate room.
Background & Aim: Person-Centered-Care (PCC) requires knowledge about patient preferences. Among People living with Dementia (PlwD) only limited evidence about patient preferences, more specifically quantitative preferences, is available. Additionally, data on congruence of patient preferences with physicians’ judgements are missing. Information on patient preferences and their congruence with physicians’ judgements is expected to support Shared Decision-Making and respectively support the implementation of PCC in dementia. The aim of this dissertation was to analyze patient preferences and physicians’ judgements for PCC, including an assessment of their congruence, based on data from the mixed-methods PreDemCare-study. (Funding: Doctoral Scholarship from the Hans & Ilse Breuer-Stiftung.)
Methods: Development and conduct of a cross-sectional Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) survey with n=50 PlwD and n=25 physicians. Individual AHP-weights were calculated with the principal right eigenvector method and aggregated per group by Aggregation of Individual Priorities (AIP) mode. Individual consistency ratios (CRs) were calculated and aggregated per group. Group differences were analyzed descriptively by AIP-derived means and standard deviations of AHP-weights, resulting ranks, and boxplots. Additionally, differences between groups were investigated with independent paired t-tests or Mann Whitney-U tests. The sensitivity of AHP-results at the level of criteria was tested by an exclusion of inconsistent respondents in both groups, with an accepted threshold of the individual CR at ≤ 0.3 for PlwD and ≤ 0.2 for physicians.
Results: Contrary to expectation, PlwD’s and physician’s ranking of AHP-elements did not differ meaningfully. Memory Exercises was the only AHP-criterion, for which a significant difference in AHP-weights could be identified (p-value = 0.01). After inconsistent participants had been excluded, no rank reversals occurred. At the level of criteria, the mean CR for PlwD was 0.261 and 0.181 for physicians, id est (i.e.) below the
defined threshold.
Conclusion: In the selected study setting of the PreDemCare-study, patient preferences and physicians’ judgements for elements of PCC in dementia aligned well, contrary to expectations. Subject to restrictions by small sample sizes, the findings may form a basis to guide the implementation of preference-based, person-centered dementia care.