Aubri S Hoffman1, Daniel R Bateman1,2, Craig Ganoe3, Sukdith Punjasthitkul3, Amar K Das3, Derek B Hoffman1, Ashley J Housten4, Hillary A Peirce1, Larissa Dreyer1, Chen Tang1, Alina Bennett5, Stephen J Bartels1,2. 1. Department of Community and Family Medicine, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth College, Lebanon, New Hampshire. 2. Department of Psychiatry, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth College, Lebanon, New Hampshire. 3. Department of Biomedical Data Science, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth College, Lebanon, New Hampshire. 4. Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine at St. Louis, Missouri. 5. Department of Regional Ethics, Kaiser Permanente Northern California Regional, Oakland, California.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Decisions about long-term care and financing can be difficult to comprehend, consider, and communicate. In a previous needs assessment, families in rural areas requested a patient-facing website; however, questions arose about the acceptability of an online tool for older adults. This study engaged older adults and family caregivers in (a) designing and refining an interactive, tailored decision aid website, and (b) field testing its utility, feasibility, and acceptability. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Based on formative work, the research team engaged families in designing and iteratively revising paper drafts, then programmed a tailored website. The field test used the ThinkAloud approach and pre-/postquestionnaires to assess participants' knowledge, decisional conflict, usage, and acceptability ratings. RESULTS: Forty-five older adults, family members, and stakeholders codesigned and tested the decision aid, yielding four decision-making steps: Get the Facts, What Matters Most, Consider Your Resources, and Make an Action Plan. User-based design and iterative storyboarding enhanced the content, personal decision-making activities, and user-generated resources. Field-testing participants scored 83.3% correct on knowledge items and reported moderate/low decisional conflict. All (100%) were able to use the website, spent an average of 26.3 min, and provided an average 87.5% acceptability rating. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: A decision aid website can educate and support older adults and their family members in beginning a long-term care plan. Codesign and in-depth interviews improved usability, and lessons learned may guide the development of other aging decision aid websites.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Decisions about long-term care and financing can be difficult to comprehend, consider, and communicate. In a previous needs assessment, families in rural areas requested a patient-facing website; however, questions arose about the acceptability of an online tool for older adults. This study engaged older adults and family caregivers in (a) designing and refining an interactive, tailored decision aid website, and (b) field testing its utility, feasibility, and acceptability. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Based on formative work, the research team engaged families in designing and iteratively revising paper drafts, then programmed a tailored website. The field test used the ThinkAloud approach and pre-/postquestionnaires to assess participants' knowledge, decisional conflict, usage, and acceptability ratings. RESULTS: Forty-five older adults, family members, and stakeholders codesigned and tested the decision aid, yielding four decision-making steps: Get the Facts, What Matters Most, Consider Your Resources, and Make an Action Plan. User-based design and iterative storyboarding enhanced the content, personal decision-making activities, and user-generated resources. Field-testing participants scored 83.3% correct on knowledge items and reported moderate/low decisional conflict. All (100%) were able to use the website, spent an average of 26.3 min, and provided an average 87.5% acceptability rating. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: A decision aid website can educate and support older adults and their family members in beginning a long-term care plan. Codesign and in-depth interviews improved usability, and lessons learned may guide the development of other aging decision aid websites.
Authors: Marilyn M Schapira; Charu Aggarwal; Scott Akers; Jaya Aysola; Diana Imbert; Corey Langer; Charlie B Simone; Emily Strittmatter; Anil Vachani; Liana Fraenkel Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2016-11
Authors: Kirsten J McCaffery; Margaret Holmes-Rovner; Sian K Smith; David Rovner; Don Nutbeam; Marla L Clayman; Karen Kelly-Blake; Michael S Wolf; Stacey L Sheridan Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2013-11-29 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Dawn Stacey; Jennifer Kryworuchko; Jeff Belkora; B Joyce Davison; Marie-Anne Durand; Karen B Eden; Aubri S Hoffman; Mirjam Koerner; France Légaré; Marie-Chantal Loiselle; Richard L Street Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2013-11-29 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: David H Gustafson; Adam Maus; Julianne Judkins; Susan Dinauer; Andrew Isham; Roberta Johnson; Gina Landucci; Amy K Atwood Journal: JMIR Hum Factors Date: 2016-01-14
Authors: Lisa Cranley; Gajan Sivakumaran; Shoshana Helfenbaum; Daniel Galessiere; Raquel Meyer; Wendy Duggleby; Linda McGillis Hall; Katherine S McGilton Journal: Int J Older People Nurs Date: 2021-10-07 Impact factor: 2.471
Authors: Brad Meulenkamp; Julia Brillinger; Dean Fergusson; Dawn Stacey; Ian D Graham Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2021-07-24 Impact factor: 2.796