Dyadic Discrete Choice Experiments Enable Persons with Dementia and Informal Caregivers to Participate in Health Care Decision Making: A Mixed Methods Study

Background: Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) may facilitate persons with dementia and informal caregivers to state care preferences. DCEs can be cognitively challenging for persons with dementia. Objective: This study aims to design a dementia friendly dyadic DCE that enables persons with dementia and informal caregivers to provide input individually and jointly, by testing the number of attributes and choice tasks persons with dementia can complete and providing insight in their DCE decision-making process. Methods: This study included three DCE rounds: 1) persons with dementia, 2) informal caregivers, and 3) persons with dementia and informal caregivers together. A flexible DCE design was employed, with increasing choice task complexity to explore cognitive limitations in decision-making. Summary statistics and bivariate comparisons were calculated. A qualitative think-aloud approach was used to gain insight in the DCE decision-making processes. Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: Fifteen person with dementia, 15 informal caregiver, and 14 dyadic DCEs were conducted. In the individual DCE, persons with dementia completed six choice tasks (median), and 80% could complete a choice task with least three attributes. In the dyadic DCE persons with dementia completed eight choice tasks (median) and could handle slightly more attributes. Qualitative results included themes of core components in DCE decision-making such as: understanding the choice task, attribute and level perception, option attractiveness evaluation, decision rule selection, and preference adaptation. Conclusion: Persons with dementia can use simple DCE designs. The dyadic DCE was promising for dyads to identify overlapping and discrepant care preferences while reaching consensus.

[1]  Y. Gambier,et al.  Handbook of Translation Studies , 2021, Handbook of Translation Studies.

[2]  J. Ratcliffe,et al.  Using discrete choice experiments to elicit the service preferences of people with mild intellectual disability: An exploratory study. , 2021, Health & social care in the community.

[3]  S. Lee,et al.  Application of Mixed Methods in Health Services Management Research: A Systematic Review , 2021, Medical care research and review : MCRR.

[4]  Nanon H. M. Labrie,et al.  Persons with dementia and informal caregivers prioritizing care: A mixed‐methods study , 2021, Alzheimer's & dementia.

[5]  Nanon H. M. Labrie,et al.  Important components for Dutch in‐home care based on qualitative interviews with persons with dementia and informal caregivers , 2020, Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy.

[6]  Emily Holmes,et al.  People with dementia and caregiver preferences for digital life story work service interventions. A discrete choice experiment and digital survey , 2020, Aging & mental health.

[7]  E. O'Shea,et al.  Public preferences for home care services for people with dementia: A discrete choice experiment on personhood. , 2019, Social science & medicine.

[8]  T. Comans,et al.  How do people with dementia and family carers value dementia‐specific quality of life states? An explorative “Think Aloud” study , 2019, Australasian journal on ageing.

[9]  D. Cantarero-Prieto,et al.  The economic cost of dementia: A systematic review , 2019, Dementia.

[10]  D. Challis,et al.  Carer preferences for home support services in later stage dementia , 2019, Aging & mental health.

[11]  Alan R. Ellis,et al.  Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future , 2018, PharmacoEconomics.

[12]  Nobuyuki Soga,et al.  The relationship between the anchoring effect and the mere exposure effect in commodity selection , 2018, MISNC '18.

[13]  D. Challis,et al.  People with dementia and carer preferences for home support services in early-stage dementia , 2018, Aging & mental health.

[14]  Jack L. Vevea,et al.  A Re-Examination of the Mere Exposure Effect: The Influence of Repeated Exposure on Recognition, Familiarity, and Liking , 2017, Psychological bulletin.

[15]  Mandy Ryan,et al.  Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. , 2012, Health economics.

[16]  Richard Harding,et al.  Short-form Zarit Caregiver Burden Interviews were valid in advanced conditions. , 2010, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[17]  D. Hensher,et al.  An Analytical Framework for Joint vs Separate Decisions by Couples in Choice Experiments: The Case of Coastal Water Quality in Tobago , 2009 .

[18]  Louise Doyle,et al.  An overview of mixed methods research , 2009 .

[19]  M. Ryan,et al.  Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care , 2008 .

[20]  C. Whitlatch Informal Caregivers: Communication and Decision Making , 2008, The American journal of nursing.

[21]  P. Sainsbury,et al.  Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. , 2007, International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care.

[22]  S. Bouwens,et al.  Telefonisch Interview Cognitieve Status (TICS): psychometrische aspecten , 2007 .

[23]  W. Greene,et al.  Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer , 2005 .

[24]  S. Bryan,et al.  Proxy completion of EQ-5D in patients with dementia , 2005, Quality of Life Research.

[25]  Janni Nielsen,et al.  Getting access to what goes on in people's heads?: reflections on the think-aloud technique , 2002, NordiCHI '02.

[26]  A. Scott,et al.  Identifying and analysing dominant preferences in discrete choice experiments: An application in health care , 2002 .

[27]  D. Hensher,et al.  Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications , 2000 .

[28]  Donald R. Lehmann,et al.  Models of Cooperative Group Decision-Making and Relative Influence: An Experimental Investigation of Family Purchase Decisions , 1987 .

[29]  B. Dosher,et al.  Strategies for multiattribute binary choice. , 1983, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[30]  S. Katz,et al.  STUDIES OF ILLNESS IN THE AGED. THE INDEX OF ADL: A STANDARDIZED MEASURE OF BIOLOGICAL AND PSYCHOSOCIAL FUNCTION. , 1963, JAMA.

[31]  Sebastian Heidenreich,et al.  Decision heuristic or preference? Attribute non‐attendance in discrete choice problems , 2018, Health economics.

[32]  J. Louviere,et al.  Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making , 2012, PharmacoEconomics.

[33]  A. Panter,et al.  APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol 2: Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological. , 2012 .

[34]  John M. Rose,et al.  Accounting for Preference and Scale Heterogeneity in Establishing Whether it Matters Who is Interviewed to Reveal Household Automobile Purchase Preferences , 2011 .

[35]  F. Verhey,et al.  [The psychometric properties of the Dutch version of the Telephone Interview Cognitive Status (TICS)]. , 2007, Tijdschrift voor gerontologie en geriatrie.

[36]  S. Katz Studies of illness in the aged , 1963 .