↓ Skip to main content

Tailoring and evaluating an intervention to improve shared decision-making among seniors with dementia, their caregivers, and healthcare providers: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
263 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Tailoring and evaluating an intervention to improve shared decision-making among seniors with dementia, their caregivers, and healthcare providers: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
Published in
Trials, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13063-018-2697-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anik M. C. Giguere, Moulikatou Adouni Lawani, Émilie Fortier-Brochu, Pierre-Hugues Carmichael, France Légaré, Edeltraut Kröger, Holly O. Witteman, Philippe Voyer, Danielle Caron, Charo Rodríguez

Abstract

The increasing prevalence of Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia raises new challenges to ensure that healthcare decisions are informed by research evidence and reflect what is important for seniors and their caregivers. Therefore, we aim to evaluate a tailored intervention to help healthcare providers empower seniors and their caregivers in making health-related decisions. In two phases, we will: (1) design and tailor the intervention; and (2) implement and evaluate it. We will use theory and user-centered design to tailor an intervention comprising a distance professional training program on shared decision-making and five shared decision-making tools dealing with difficult decisions often faced by seniors with dementia and their caregivers. Each tool will be designed in two versions, one for clinicians and one for patients. We will recruit 49 clinicians and 27 senior/caregiver to participate in three cycles of design-evaluation-feedback of each intervention components. Besides think-aloud and interview approaches, users will also complete questionnaires based on the Theory of Planned Behavior to identify the factors most likely to influence their adoption of shared decision-making after exposure to the intervention. We will then modify the intervention by adding/enhancing behavior-change techniques targeting these factors. We will evaluate the effectiveness of this tailored intervention before/after implementation, in a two-armed, clustered randomized trial. We will enroll a convenience sample of six primary care clinics (unit of randomization) in the province of Quebec and recruit the clinicians who practice there (mostly family physicians, nurses, and social workers). These clinics will then be randomized to immediate exposure to the intervention or delayed exposure. Overall, we will recruit 180 seniors with dementia, their caregivers, and their healthcare providers. We will evaluate the impact of the intervention on patient involvement in the decision-making process, decisional comfort, patient and caregiver personal empowerment in relation to their own healthcare, patient quality of life, caregiver burden, and decisional regret. The intervention will empower patients and their caregivers in their healthcare, by fostering their participation as partners during the decision-making process and by ensuring they make informed decisions congruent with their values and priorities. ClinicalTrials.org, NCT02956694 . Registered on 31 October 2016.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 263 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 263 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 38 14%
Researcher 31 12%
Student > Bachelor 26 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 20 8%
Other 57 22%
Unknown 68 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 58 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 39 15%
Social Sciences 21 8%
Psychology 20 8%
Unspecified 12 5%
Other 33 13%
Unknown 80 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 December 2018.
All research outputs
#6,255,572
of 22,876,619 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#2,273
of 5,890 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#109,496
of 328,238 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#73
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,876,619 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,890 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,238 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 116 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.