↓ Skip to main content

Development of a decision guide to support the elderly in decision making about location of care: an iterative, user-centered design

Overview of attention for article published in Research Involvement and Engagement, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
14 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 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
Development of a decision guide to support the elderly in decision making about location of care: an iterative, user-centered design
Published in
Research Involvement and Engagement, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40900-016-0040-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mirjam M. Garvelink, Julie Emond, Matthew Menear, Nathalie Brière, Adriana Freitas, Laura Boland, Maria Margarita Becerra Perez, Louisa Blair, Dawn Stacey, France Légaré

Abstract

For the elderly to get the care and services they need, they may need to make the difficult decision about staying in their home or moving to another home. Many other people may be involved in their care too (friends, family and healthcare providers), and can support them in making the decision. We asked informal caregivers of elderly people to help us develop a decision guide to support them and their loved ones in making this decision. This guide will be used by health providers in home care who are trained to help people make decisions. The guide is in French and English. To design and test this decision guide we involved elderly people, their caregivers and health administrators. We first asked them what they needed for making the decision, and then designed a first version of the guide. Then we asked them to look at it and give feedback, which was used to make the final version. We then used scientific criteria to check its content and the language used. The final decision guide was acceptable to the caregivers, their elderly loved ones, and the health administrators. The guide is currently being evaluated in a large research project with home care teams in the province of Quebec. Background As they grow older, many elderly people are faced with the difficult and preference-sensitive decision about staying in their home or moving to a residence better adapted to their evolving care needs. We aimed to develop an English and French decision aid (DA) for elderly people facing this decision, and to involve end-users in all phases of the development process. Methods A three-cycle design with involvement of end-users in Quebec. End-users were elderly people (n = 4) caregivers of the elderly (n = 5), health administrators involved in home-care service delivery or policy (n = 6) and an interprofessional research team (n = 19). Cycle 1: Decisional needs assessment and development of the first prototype based on existing tools and input from end-users; overview of reviews examining the impact of location of care on elderly people's health outcomes. Cycle 2: Usability testing with end-users, adaptation of prototype. Cycle 3: Refinement of the prototype with a linguist, graphic designer and end-users. The final prototype underwent readability testing and an International Patient Decision Aids (IPDAS) criteria compatibility assessment to verify minimal requirements for decision aids and was tested for usability by the elderly. ResultsCycle 1: We used the Ottawa Personal Decision Guide to design a first prototype. As the overview of reviews did not find definitive evidence regarding optimal locations of care for elderly people, we were not able to add evidence-based advantages and disadvantages to the guide. Cycle 2: Overall, the caregivers and health administrators who evaluated the prototype (n = 10) were positive. In response to their suggestions, we deleted some elements (overview of pros, cons, and consequences of the options) that were necessary to qualify the tool as a DA and renamed it a "decision guide". Cycle 3: We developed French and English versions of the guide, readable at a primary school level. The elderly judged the guide as acceptable. Conclusion We developed a decision guide to support elderly people and their caregivers in decision making about location of care. This paper is one of few to report on a fully collaborative approach to decision guide development that involves end-users at every stage (caregivers and health administrators early on, the frail elderly in the final stages). The guide is currently being evaluated in a cluster randomized trial. Trial registration: NCT02244359.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 68 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 14%
Student > Master 10 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Other 12 17%
Unknown 19 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 19%
Social Sciences 7 10%
Psychology 5 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 28 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 06 April 2018.
All research outputs
#4,031,156
of 24,525,936 outputs
Outputs from Research Involvement and Engagement
#290
of 454 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,815
of 370,814 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Research Involvement and Engagement
#8
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,525,936 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 454 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.4. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 370,814 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.