Refine
Document Type
- Article (1)
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
Language
- English (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2)
Keywords
- Patient preferences (2) (remove)
Institute
- Institut für Community Medicine (2) (remove)
Publisher
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.
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.