Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2020

01-12-2020 | Care | Research article

What matters to me – a web-based preference elicitation tool for clients in long-term care: a user-centred design

Authors: Catharina M. van Leersum, Albine Moser, Ben van Steenkiste, Marion Reinartz, Esther Stoffers, Judith R. L. M. Wolf, Trudy van der Weijden

Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

During the process of decision-making for long-term care, clients are often dependent on informal support and available information about quality ratings of care services. However, clients do not take ratings into account when considering preferred care, and need assistance to understand their preferences. A tool to elicit preferences for long-term care could be beneficial. Therefore, the aim of this qualitative descriptive study is to understand the user requirements and develop a web-based preference elicitation tool for clients in need of long-term care.

Methods

We applied a user-centred design in which end-users influence the development of the tool. The included end-users were clients, relatives, and healthcare professionals. Data collection took place between November 2017 and March 2018 by means of meetings with the development team consisting of four users, walkthrough interviews with 21 individual users, video-audio recordings, field notes, and observations during the use of the tool. Data were collected during three phases of iteration: Look and feel, Navigation, and Content. A deductive and inductive content analysis approach was used for data analysis.

Results

The layout was considered accessible and easy during the Look and feel phase, and users asked for neutral images. Users found navigation easy, and expressed the need for concise and shorter text blocks. Users reached consensus about the categories of preferences, wished to adjust the content with propositions about well-being, and discussed linguistic difficulties.

Conclusion

By incorporating the requirements of end-users, the user-centred design proved to be useful in progressing from the prototype to the finalized tool ‘What matters to me’. This tool may assist the elicitation of client’s preferences in their search for long-term care.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Braziunas D, Boutilier C. Elicitation of factored utilities. AI Mag. 2008;29(4):79–92.CrossRef
2.
Fried TR, Tinetti M, Agostini J, Iannone L, Towle V. Health outcome prioritization to elicit preferences of older persons with multiple health conditions. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;83(2):278–82.CrossRef
3.
Gutknecht M, Schaarschmidt ML, Danner M, Otten M, Augustin M. How to weight patient-relevant treatment goals for assessing treatment benefit in psoriasis: preference elicitation methods vs. rating scales. Arch Dermatol Res. 2018;310(7):567–77.CrossRef
4.
Bellman RE, Zadeh LA. Decision making in a fuzzy environment. Manag Sci. 1970;17:141–64.CrossRef
5.
Elwyn G, Lloyd A, May C, van der Weijden T, Stiggelbout A, Edwards A, Frosch DL, Rapley T, Barr P, Walsh T, et al. Collaborative deliberation: a model for patient care. Patient Educ Couns. 2014;97(2):158–64.CrossRef
6.
McCall N. Long term care: definition, demand, cost, and finance. In: McCall N, editor. Who will pay for long term care?: Insights from the partnership programs. University of Michigan. Chicago: Health Administration Press; 2001. p. 3–31.
7.
Kane RA. Long-term care and a good quality of life: bringing them closer together. Gerontologist. 2001;41(3):293–304.CrossRef
8.
Ribeiro RA. Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making: a review and new preference elicitation techniques. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 1996;78(2):155–81.CrossRef
9.
van Summeren JJ, Haaijer-Ruskamp FM, Schuling J. Eliciting preferences of multimorbid elderly adults in family practice using an outcome prioritization tool. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2016;64(11):e143–8.CrossRef
10.
Warren C, McGraw AP, Van Boven L. Values and preferences: defining preference construction. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci. 2011;2(2):193–205.CrossRef
11.
Moser A, Korstjens I, van der Weijden T, Tange H. Themes affecting health-care consumers' choice of a hospital for elective surgery when receiving web-based comparative consumer information. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;78(3):365–71.CrossRef
12.
Kahneman D. Ons feilbare denken: thinking, fast and slow. Amsterdam/Antwerpen: Uitgeverij Business Contact; 2011.
13.
Pu P, Chen L. User-involved preference elicitation for product search and recommender systems. AI Mag. 2008;29(4):93–103.CrossRef
14.
van Leersum CM, Moser A, van Steenkiste B, Wolf JRLM, Van der Weijden T. Getting to grips with the process of decision-making in long-term care. Descriptive cases illustrate the chaotic reality of the construction of preferences. PLoS One. 2019;14(5):e0217338. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1371/​journal.​pone.​0217338.
15.
Victoor A, Delnoij DM, Friele RD, Rademakers JJ. Determinants of patient choice of healthcare providers: a scoping review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:272.CrossRef
16.
Turnpenny A, Beadle-Brown J. Use of quality information in decision-making about health and social care services - a systematic review. Health Soc Care Comm. 2015;23(4):349–61.CrossRef
17.
Wintermute K, Wilson L, Levinson W. Choosing wisely in primary care. Moving from recommendations to implementation. Can Fam Physician. 2018;64(May 2018):336–8.
18.
van Summeren JJ, Schuling J, Haaijer-Ruskamp FM, Denig P. Outcome prioritisation tool for medication review in older patients with multimorbidity: a pilot study in general practice. Br J Gen Pract. 2017;67(660):e501–6.CrossRef
19.
Howard BJ, Sturner R. Use of an online clinical process support system as an aid to identification and Management of Developmental and Mental Health Problems. Curr Dev Disord Rep. 2017;4(4):108–17.CrossRef
20.
Volk RJ, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Stacey D, Elwyn G. Ten years of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Collaboration: evolution of the core dimensions for assessing the quality of patient decision aids. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13 Suppl 2:S1.PubMed
21.
Abras C, Maloney-Kirchmar D, Preece J. User-Centered Design. In: Brainbridge W, editor. Encyclopedia of human-computer interaction. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2004.
22.
Coulter A, Stilwell D, Kryworuchko J, Mullen PD, Ng CJ, van der Weijden T. A systematic development process for patient decision aids. BMC Med Inform Decis. 2013;13(Suppl 2):S2.
23.
Latour B. Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.
24.
Light B, Burgess J, Duguay S. The walkthrough method: an approach to the study of apps. New Media Soc. 2018;20(3):881–900.CrossRef
25.
26.
Savelberg W, van der Weijden T, Boersma L, Smidt M, Willekens C, Moser A. Developing a patient decision aid for the treatment of women with early stage breast cancer: the struggle between simplicity and complexity. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2017;17(1):112.CrossRef
27.
Garvelink MM, Emond J, Menear M, Briere N, Freitas A, Boland L, Perez MMB, Blair L, Stacey D, Legare F. Development of a decision guide to support the elderly in decision making about location of care: an iterative, user-centered design. Res Involv Engagem. 2016;2:26.CrossRef
28.
Europe Co. Common European Framework of Reference of Language: Learning, teaching and assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge Universtiy Press; 2011.
29.
Nielsen J, Landauer TK. A Mathematical Model of the Finding of Usability Problems. Interchi. 1993;93(April):206–13.
30.
Elo S, Kyngas H. The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs. 2008;62(1):107–15.CrossRef
31.
Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Naturalistic inquiry. Newsbury Park: SAGE Publications; 1985.CrossRef
32.
Arnstein SR. A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Plann Assoc. 1969;35(4):216–24.
33.
Baier RR, Wysocki A, Gravenstein S, Cooper E, Mor V, Clark M. A qualitative study of choosing home health care after hospitalization: the unintended consequences of 'patient choice' requirements. J Gen Intern Med. 2015;30(5):634–40.CrossRef
34.
Nieboer AP, Cramm JM, van der Meij B, Huijsman R. Choice processes and satisfaction with care according to parents of children and young adults with intellectual disability in the Netherlands. J Intellect Develop Disabil. 2011;36(2):127–36.CrossRef
35.
McKenzie N, Mirfin-Veitch B, Conder J, Brandford S. "I'm still here": exploring what matters to people with intellectual disability during advance care planning. J Appl Res Intellect Disabil. 2017;30(6):1089–98.CrossRef
36.
Tinetti ME, Naik AD, Dodson JA. Moving from disease-centered to patient goals-directed Care for Patients with Multiple Chronic Conditions: patient value-based care. JAMA Cardiol. 2016;1(1):9–10.CrossRef
37.
Hendrinks M, de Boer D. Burgers willen een centrale website met betrouwbare informatie over zorg en gezondheid. Verslag van tweedaagse bijeenkomst van het BurgerPlatform. In: NIVEL, editor. . Utrecht: NIVEL; 2017. p. 63.
38.
Sinuff T, Dodek P, You JJ, Barwich D, Tayler C, Downar J, Hartwick M, Frank C, Stelfox HT, Heyland DK. Improving end-of-life communication and decision making: the development of a conceptual framework and quality indicators. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2015;49(6):1070–80.CrossRef
39.
Le T, Tabakhi AM, Tran-Thanh L, Yeoh W, Cao Son T. Preference Elicitation with Interdependency and User Bother Cost, Session 40. Human and Agent Interaction. Stockholm: AAMAS; 2018. p. 1459–67.
40.
Constand MK, MacDermid JC, Dal Bello-Haas V, Law M. Scoping review of patient-centered care approaches in healthcare. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:271.CrossRef
41.
Franklin M, Lewis S, Willis K, Bourke-Taylor H, Smith L. Patients' and healthcare professionals' perceptions of self-management support interactions: systematic review and qualitative synthesis. Chronic Illn. 2018;14(2):79–103.CrossRef
42.
Luxford K, Safran DG, Delbanco T. Promoting patient-centered care: a qualitative study of facilitators and barriers in healthcare organizations with a reputation for improving the patient experience. Int J Qual Health Care. 2011;23(5):510–5.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
What matters to me – a web-based preference elicitation tool for clients in long-term care: a user-centred design
Authors
Catharina M. van Leersum
Albine Moser
Ben van Steenkiste
Marion Reinartz
Esther Stoffers
Judith R. L. M. Wolf
Trudy van der Weijden
Publication date
01-12-2020
Publisher
BioMed Central
Keyword
Care
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6947
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-020-1067-6

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2020 Go to the issue

Research article

The considerations, experiences and support needs of family members making treatment decisions for patients admitted with major stroke: a qualitative study

Research article

Professional training on shared decision making with older adults living with neurocognitive disorders: a mixed-methods implementation study

Research article

Implementation and comparison of two text mining methods with a standard pharmacovigilance method for signal detection of medication errors

Research article

An e-registry for household contacts exposed to multidrug resistant TB in Mongolia

Research article

Tracking personalized functional health in older adults using geriatric assessments

Software

A comprehensive tool for creating and evaluating privacy-preserving biomedical prediction models