Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32183786›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2020

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

Catharina M van Leersum, Albine Moser, Ben van Steenkiste, Marion Reinartz, Esther Stoffers, Judith R L M Wolf, Trudy van der Weijden

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. The Tell me tool: The development and feasibility of a tool for person-centred infertility care.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Catharina M van LeersumDepartment of Family Medicine, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University Medical Centre, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands. karin.vanleersum@maastrichtuniversity.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-1003-0794
Albine MoserDepartment of Family Medicine, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University Medical Centre, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Ben van SteenkisteDepartment of Family Medicine, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University Medical Centre, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Marion ReinartzZorgbelang inclusief, P.O. Box 5310, 6802 EH, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Esther StoffersBurgerkracht Limburg, P.O. Box 5185, 6130 PD, Sittard, The Netherlands.
Judith R L M WolfImpuls - Netherlands Center for Social Care Research, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB, 117, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Trudy van der WeijdenDepartment of Family Medicine, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University Medical Centre, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDuring the process of decision-making for long-term care, clients are often dependent on informal support and available information about quality ratings of care services. However, clients do not take ratings into account when considering preferred care, and need assistance to understand their preferences. A tool to elicit preferences for long-term care could be beneficial. Therefore, the aim of this qualitative descriptive study is to understand the user requirements and develop a web-based preference elicitation tool for clients in need of long-term care.

methodsWe applied a user-centred design in which end-users influence the development of the tool. The included end-users were clients, relatives, and healthcare professionals. Data collection took place between November 2017 and March 2018 by means of meetings with the development team consisting of four users, walkthrough interviews with 21 individual users, video-audio recordings, field notes, and observations during the use of the tool. Data were collected during three phases of iteration: Look and feel, Navigation, and Content. A deductive and inductive content analysis approach was used for data analysis.

resultsThe layout was considered accessible and easy during the Look and feel phase, and users asked for neutral images. Users found navigation easy, and expressed the need for concise and shorter text blocks. Users reached consensus about the categories of preferences, wished to adjust the content with propositions about well-being, and discussed linguistic difficulties.

conclusionBy incorporating the requirements of end-users, the user-centred design proved to be useful in progressing from the prototype to the finalized tool 'What matters to me'. This tool may assist the elicitation of client's preferences in their search for long-term care.

Indexed as

Decision MakingSoftware DesignUser-Computer InterfaceAdultAgedFemaleHumansLong-Term CareMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsPatient PreferenceQualitative ResearchDecision support techniquesLong-term carePatient preferencesPreference elicitationUser-Centred designUser requirements

Identifiers

PMID32183786
PMCPMC7077015

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.