Elicitation of quantitative, choice-based preferences for Person-Centered Care among People living with Dementia in comparison to physicians' judgements in Germany: study protocol for the mixed-methods PreDemCare-study

An analytic hierarchy process analysis for reinforcing doctor-patient communication

BACKGROUND

As the health paradigm shifts toward patient-centeredness, patients can actively participate in their own treatment. However, there is still a unilateral aspect of doctor-patient communication, so it is necessary to specify obstacles between doctors and patients. Therefore, this study attempted to extract obstacles that block doctor-patient communication and to analyze differences in perception of doctor-patient communication.

METHODS

A total of 35 questionnaires composed of brainstorming for the study were distributed, and a total of 21 questionnaires were used for analysis. The collected data was analyzed by AHP using dress ver 17.0.

RESULTS

As a result of the study, doctors ranked the priority of health communication in the order of professionalism, reliability, fairness, communication, and psychologically. On the other hand, for patients, the priority factors of health communication were communication, fairness, professionalism, reliability, and psychologically.

CONCLUSION

In order to improve the quality of health communication between doctors and patients, doctors will be able to communicate from the patient's point of view and strengthen communication with patients by providing consistent medical services and patients need to trust the doctor and patients need to trust their doctors and participate in the medical process faithfully.

Best-Worst Scaling Survey of Inpatients' Preferences in Medical Decision-Making Participation in China

This study assesses inpatients' preferences for participating in medical decision-making and determines the factors' rankings in order of importance and whether they vary for respondents with different characteristics. Case 1 best-worst scaling (BWS) was used for the study design. Thirteen attributes influencing inpatient medical decision-making participation were identified based on a literature review and interview results. A balanced incomplete block design was used to form choice sets for the BWS questionnaire for a cross-sectional study examining inpatients' preferences for participating in medical decision-making. Based on results from 814 inpatient participants, the three most important factors influencing inpatients' medical decision-making participation were inpatients' trust in physicians, physicians' professional expertise, and physicians' attitudes. The mixed logit model results reflect the significant heterogeneity in respondents' preferences for shared decision-making. To facilitate resource allocation, improve the physician-patient relationship, and encourage patient decision-making participation more actively and effectively, decision-makers should emphasize patients' trust, enhance physicians' ability to diagnose and treat diseases, and improve their attitudes toward providing care and communication from the perspectives of patients, physicians, and the social environment. Further research is needed on the heterogeneity of patients' preferences for participating in medical decision-making and how to improve patient participation.

Do They Align? Congruence Between Patient Preferences of People Living with Cognitive Impairments and Physicians' Judgements for Person-Centered Care: An Analytic Hierarchy Process Study

BACKGROUND

Person-centered care (PCC) requires knowledge about patient preferences. Among people living with cognitive impairments (PlwCI), evidence on quantitative, choice-based preferences, which allow to quantify, weigh, and rank care elements, is limited. Furthermore, data on the congruence of patient preferences with physicians' judgements for PCC are missing. Such information is expected to support the implementation of PCC; state-of-the-art medical care aligned with patients' preferences.

OBJECTIVE

To elicit patient preferences and physicians' judgements for PCC and their congruence.

METHODS

Data from the mixed-methods PreDemCare study, including a cross-sectional, paper-and-pencil, interviewer-assisted analytic hierarchy process (AHP) survey conducted with n = 50 community-dwelling PlwCI and n = 25 physicians. Individual AHP weights (preferences/judgements) were calculated with the principal eigenvector method and aggregated per group by aggregation of individual priorities mode. Individual consistency ratios (CRs) were calculated and aggregated per group. Group differences in preferences/judgements were investigated descriptively by means and standard deviations (SDs) of AHP weights, resulting ranks, and boxplots. Additionally, differences between groups were investigated with independent paired t-test/Mann Whitney U-test. Sensitivity of AHP results was tested by inclusion/exclusion of inconsistent respondents, with an accepted threshold at CR≤0.3 for patients, and CR≤0.2 for physicians, due to better cognitive fitness of the latter group.

RESULTS

Patient preferences and physicians' judgements did not differ significantly, except for the criterion Memory Exercises (AHP weights (mean (SD)): 0.135 (0.066) versus 0.099 (0.068), p = 0.01). We did not see rank-reversals of criteria after exclusion of inconsistent participants. Mean CR for patients at the criteria level was 0.261, and 0.181 for physicians.

CONCLUSION

Physicians' judgements in our setting aligned well with patients' preferences. Our findings may be used to guide the implementation of preference-based PCC.

Development of a Quantitative Preference Instrument for Person-Centered Dementia Care-Stage 2: Insights from a Formative Qualitative Study to Design and Pretest a Dementia-Friendly Analytic Hierarchy Process Survey

Person-centered care (PCC) requires knowledge about patient preferences. An analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is one approach to quantify, weigh and rank patient preferences suitable for People living with Dementia (PlwD), due to simple pairwise comparisons of individual criteria from a complex decision problem. The objective of the present study was to design and pretest a dementia-friendly AHP survey. Methods: Two expert panels consisting of n = 4 Dementia Care Managers and n = 4 physicians to ensure content-validity, and "thinking-aloud" interviews with n = 11 PlwD and n = 3 family caregivers to ensure the face validity of the AHP survey. Following a semi-structured interview guide, PlwD were asked to assess appropriateness and comprehensibility. Data, field notes and partial interview transcripts were analyzed with a constant comparative approach, and feedback was incorporated continuously until PlwD had no further comments or struggles with survey completion. Consistency ratios (CRs) were calculated with Microsoft® Excel and ExpertChoice Comparion®. Results: Three main categories with sub-categories emerged: (1) Content: clear task introduction, (sub)criteria description, criteria homogeneity, (sub)criteria appropriateness, retest questions and sociodemography for heterogeneity; (2) Format: survey structure, pairwise comparison sequence, survey length, graphical design (incl. AHP scale), survey procedure explanation, survey assistance and response perspective; and (3) Layout: easy wording, short sentences and visual aids. Individual CRs ranged from 0.08 to 0.859, and the consolidated CR was 0.37 (0.038). Conclusions: Our formative qualitative study provides initial data for the design of a dementia-friendly AHP survey. Consideration of our findings may contribute to face and content validity in future quantitative preference research in dementia.