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

Leersum, Catharina Margaretha van; Moser, Albine; Steenkiste, Ben van; Reinartz, Marion; Stoffers, Esther; Wolf, Judith

doi:10.1186/s12911-020-1067-6

Cited by 10 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Other researchers in the Netherlands also involved end‐users in the development of their tool for long‐term care. This resulted in a web‐based tool that assists patients with preference elicitation during consultations with professionals 50 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Tell me tool: The development and feasibility of a tool for person‐centred infertility care

Verkerk¹,

Rake²,

Braat

et al. 2022

Health Expectations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: An important-and often missing-element of person-centred care is the inclusion of individual patients' values and preferences. This is challenging but especially important for high-burden fertility treatments. We describe the development of a clinical tool that aims to facilitate the delivery of person-centred fertility care by giving insight into the patients' values and preferences. Methods: We developed the Tell me tool following the three principles of user-centred design: (1) early and continual focus on users; (2) iterative design; (3) measurement of user behaviour. Accordingly, our methods consisted of three phases: (1) conducting semistructured interviews with 18 couples undergoing fertility treatment, followed by a consensus meeting with relevant stakeholders; (2) performing seven iterative improvement rounds; (3) testing the feasibility of the tool in 10 couples. Results: The Tell me tool consists of a ranking assignment of 13 themes and two openended questions. These themes relate to the couples' wellbeing and experience of the treatment, such as mental health and shared decision making. The open-ended questions ask them to write down what matters most to them. The field test showed variation between the individual patients' answers. The tool proved to highlight what is important to the individual patient and gives insight into patients' personal contexts. Conclusions: We developed a tool that gives insight into the values and preferences of the individual patient. The tool seems feasible for facilitating person-centred fertility care.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This resulted in a web‐based tool that assists patients with preference elicitation during consultations with professionals. 50 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Tell me tool: The development and feasibility of a tool for person‐centred infertility care

Verkerk¹,

Rake²,

Braat

et al. 2022

Health Expectations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For each record table 3 shows the year of publication, country in which the study was performed, terminology used for the research design, topic of health, care or well-being, technological innovation, involved citizens, and the level of involvement during the different research phases. [74,75,115], and two in Austria [61,66], the Netherlands [34,68], and Ireland [79,117]. One study was conducted in Belgium [49], India [50], Italy [58], Brazil [62], Spain [64], Germany [73], Korea [82], France [84], Peru [93], and South Africa [101].…”

Section: Selection and Characteristics Of Recordsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We proposed levels of citizen involvement based on the participation ladder of Arnstein [1969] and citizen science terminology defined by Hakley [2013] [31,32]. Arnstein's participation ladder is more used in citizen science research to discuss the methodology and possibilities of citizen involvement, for example by van Leersum et al [2020] about the involvement of citizens in the need of long-term care during the development of a tool for self-assessment, and by Kotus [2013] to explore the level of participation of citizens in the urban policy making of a Polish city [33,34]. The ladder consists of eight steps including manipulation, therapy, informing, consultation, placation, partnership, delegated power, and citizen control [31].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Citizen involvement in research on technological innovations for health, care or well-being: a scoping review

Leersum

Jaschinski

Bults

et al. 2022

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Citizen science can be a powerful approach to foster the successful implementation of technological innovations in health, care or well-being. Involving experience experts as co-researchers or co-designers of technological innovations facilitates mutual learning, community building, and empowerment. By utilizing the expert knowledge of the intended users, innovations have a better chance to get adopted and solve complex health-related problems. As citizen science is still a relatively new practice for health and well-being, little is known about effective methods and guidelines for successful collaboration. This scoping review aims to provide insight in 1) the levels of citizen involvement in current research on technological innovations for health, care or well-being, 2) the best practices and used participatory methodologies, and 3) lesson’s learned by the researchers. The search was performed in SCOPUS in January 2021 and included peer-reviewed journal and conference papers published between 2016 and 2020. The final selection (N=83) was limited to empirical studies that had a clear focus on technological innovations for health, care or well-being and involved citizens at the level of collaboration or higher. Our results show a growing interest in citizens science as an inclusive research approach. Citizens are predominantly involved in the design phase of innovations and less in the preparation, data-analyses or reporting phase. Eight records had citizens in the lead in one of the research phases. Researcher use different terms to describe their methodological approach including participatory design, co-design, community based participatory research, co-creation, public and patient involvement, partcipatory action research, user-centered design and citizen science. Our selection of best practice cases shows that succesfull citizen science projects develope a structural and longtidutinal partnership with their collaborators, use a situated and adaptive research approach, and have researchers that are willing to give-up tradional power dynamics and engage in a mutual learning experience.

show abstract

“…Our preference elicitation tool 'What matters to me' is designed to elicit preferences. It has similarities to eHealth, as it is offered via the internet and designed for healthcare (22). The tool aims to assist in the construction and discussion of preferences during client-professional consultations in four long-term care sectors in the Netherlands: nursing and care of the elderly, mental health care, care of people with disabilities, and social care.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clients and professionals elicit long-term care preferences by using ‘What matters to me’: A process evaluation

Leersum

Moser

Steenkiste

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background ‘What matters to me’ is a five-category preference elicitation tool to assist clients and professionals in choosing long-term care. This study aimed to evaluate the use of and experiences with this tool. Methods A mixed-method process evaluation was applied. Participants were clients, relatives, and professionals. They were all involved in decision-making on long-term care. Data collection comprised online user activity logs (N = 71), questionnaires (N = 38), and interviews (N = 20). Descriptive statistics was used for quantitative data, and a thematic analysis for qualitative data. Results Sixty-nine percent of participants completed one or more categories in an average time of 6.9 (± 0.03) minutes. The tool was rated 6.63 (± 0.88) out of seven in the Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire (PSSUQ). Ninety-five percent experienced the tool as useful in practice. Suggestions for improvement included a separate version for relatives and a non-digital version. Although professionals thought the potentially extended consultation time could be problematic, all participants would recommend the tool to others. Conclusion ‘What matters to me’ seems useful to assist clients and professionals with preference elicitation in long-term care. Evaluation of the impact on consultations between clients and professionals by using ‘What matters to me’ is needed.

show abstract

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

Cited by 10 publications

References 34 publications

The Tell me tool: The development and feasibility of a tool for person‐centred infertility care

The Tell me tool: The development and feasibility of a tool for person‐centred infertility care

Citizen involvement in research on technological innovations for health, care or well-being: a scoping review

Clients and professionals elicit long-term care preferences by using ‘What matters to me’: A process evaluation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About