IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i14p8554-d861836.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Wiebke Mohr

    (German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases e.V. (DZNE), Site Rostock/Greifswald, Ellernholzstrasse 1-2, D-17487 Greifswald, Germany)

  • Anika Rädke

    (German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases e.V. (DZNE), Site Rostock/Greifswald, Ellernholzstrasse 1-2, D-17487 Greifswald, Germany)

  • Adel Afi

    (German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases e.V. (DZNE), Site Rostock/Greifswald, Ellernholzstrasse 1-2, D-17487 Greifswald, Germany)

  • Franka Mühlichen

    (German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases e.V. (DZNE), Site Rostock/Greifswald, Ellernholzstrasse 1-2, D-17487 Greifswald, Germany)

  • Moritz Platen

    (German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases e.V. (DZNE), Site Rostock/Greifswald, Ellernholzstrasse 1-2, D-17487 Greifswald, Germany)

  • Annelie Scharf

    (German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases e.V. (DZNE), Site Rostock/Greifswald, Ellernholzstrasse 1-2, D-17487 Greifswald, Germany)

  • Bernhard Michalowsky

    (German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases e.V. (DZNE), Site Rostock/Greifswald, Ellernholzstrasse 1-2, D-17487 Greifswald, Germany)

  • Wolfgang Hoffmann

    (German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases e.V. (DZNE), Site Rostock/Greifswald, Ellernholzstrasse 1-2, D-17487 Greifswald, Germany
    Institute for Community Medicine, Section Epidemiology of Health Care and Community Health, University Medicine Greifswald, Ellernholzstrasse 1-2, D-17487 Greifswald, Germany)

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Wiebke Mohr & Anika Rädke & Adel Afi & Franka Mühlichen & Moritz Platen & Annelie Scharf & Bernhard Michalowsky & Wolfgang Hoffmann, 2022. "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 ," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(14), pages 1-21, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:14:p:8554-:d:861836
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/14/8554/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/14/8554/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thomas L. Saaty, 1986. "Axiomatic Foundation of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(7), pages 841-855, July.
    2. Marieke G. M. Weernink & Janine A. Til & Catharina G. M. Groothuis-Oudshoorn & Maarten J. IJzerman, 2017. "Patient and Public Preferences for Treatment Attributes in Parkinson’s Disease," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 10(6), pages 763-772, December.
    3. Marion Danner & Vera Vennedey & Mickaël Hiligsmann & Sascha Fauser & Christian Gross & Stephanie Stock, 2016. "How Well Can Analytic Hierarchy Process be Used to Elicit Individual Preferences? Insights from a Survey in Patients Suffering from Age-Related Macular Degeneration," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 9(5), pages 481-492, October.
    4. Joanna Coast & Hareth Al‐Janabi & Eileen J. Sutton & Susan A. Horrocks & A. Jane Vosper & Dawn R. Swancutt & Terry N. Flynn, 2012. "Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 730-741, June.
    5. Ilene L. Hollin & Benjamin M. Craig & Joanna Coast & Kathleen Beusterien & Caroline Vass & Rachael DiSantostefano & Holly Peay, 2020. "Reporting Formative Qualitative Research to Support the Development of Quantitative Preference Study Protocols and Corresponding Survey Instruments: Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 13(1), pages 121-136, February.
    6. J. Hummel & Lotte Steuten & C. Groothuis-Oudshoorn & Nick Mulder & Maarten IJzerman, 2013. "Preferences for Colorectal Cancer Screening Techniques and Intention to Attend: a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 11(5), pages 499-507, October.
    7. Forman, Ernest & Peniwati, Kirti, 1998. "Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 165-169, July.
    8. Saaty, Thomas L., 1994. "Highlights and critical points in the theory and application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 74(3), pages 426-447, May.
    9. Axel C. Mühlbacher & Anika Kaczynski & Peter Zweifel & F. Reed Johnson, 2016. "Experimental measurement of preferences in health and healthcare using best-worst scaling: an overview," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 1-14, December.
    10. J. Hummel & John Bridges & Maarten IJzerman, 2014. "Group Decision Making with the Analytic Hierarchy Process in Benefit-Risk Assessment: A Tutorial," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 7(2), pages 129-140, June.
    11. Wiebke Mohr & Anika Rädke & Adel Afi & Franka Mühlichen & Moritz Platen & Bernhard Michalowsky & Wolfgang Hoffmann, 2022. "Development of a Quantitative Instrument to Elicit Patient Preferences for Person-Centered Dementia Care Stage 1: A Formative Qualitative Study to Identify Patient Relevant Criteria for Experimental D," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(13), pages 1-27, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wiebke Mohr & Anika Rädke & Adel Afi & Franka Mühlichen & Moritz Platen & Bernhard Michalowsky & Wolfgang Hoffmann, 2022. "Development of a Quantitative Instrument to Elicit Patient Preferences for Person-Centered Dementia Care Stage 1: A Formative Qualitative Study to Identify Patient Relevant Criteria for Experimental D," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(13), pages 1-27, June.
    2. Wolfgang Ossadnik & Stefanie Schinke & Ralf H. Kaspar, 2016. "Group Aggregation Techniques for Analytic Hierarchy Process and Analytic Network Process: A Comparative Analysis," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 421-457, March.
    3. Banai, Reza, 2010. "Evaluation of land use-transportation systems with the Analytic Network Process," The Journal of Transport and Land Use, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, vol. 3(1), pages 85-112.
    4. Sudhakar Yedla & Ram M. Shrestha, 2007. "Application of analytic hierarchy process to prioritize urban transport options: Comparative analysis of group aggregation methods," Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai Working Papers 2007-011, Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai, India.
    5. Azam Abdolazimi & Mehdi Momeni & Majid Montazeri, 2015. "Comparing ELECTRE and Linear Assignment Methods in Zoning Shahroud-Bastam Watershed for Artificial Recharge of Groundwater with GIS Technique," Modern Applied Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 9(1), pages 1-68, January.
    6. Aull-Hyde, Rhonda & Erdogan, Sevgi & Duke, Joshua M., 2006. "An experiment on the consistency of aggregated comparison matrices in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 171(1), pages 290-295, May.
    7. Jackson, Louise & Al-Janabi, Hareth & Roberts, Tracy & Ross, Jonthan, 2021. "Exploring young people's preferences for STI screening in the UK: A qualitative study and discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 279(C).
    8. Viberg Johansson, Jennifer & Shah, Nisha & Haraldsdóttir, Eik & Bentzen, Heidi Beate & Coy, Sarah & Kaye, Jane & Mascalzoni, Deborah & Veldwijk, Jorien, 2021. "Governance mechanisms for sharing of health data: An approach towards selecting attributes for complex discrete choice experiment studies," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    9. Brunnhofer, Magdalena & Gabriella, Natasha & Schöggl, Josef-Peter & Stern, Tobias & Posch, Alfred, 2020. "The biorefinery transition in the European pulp and paper industry – A three-phase Delphi study including a SWOT-AHP analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    10. J. Hummel & John Bridges & Maarten IJzerman, 2014. "Group Decision Making with the Analytic Hierarchy Process in Benefit-Risk Assessment: A Tutorial," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 7(2), pages 129-140, June.
    11. de Luca, Stefano, 2014. "Public engagement in strategic transportation planning: An analytic hierarchy process based approach," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 110-124.
    12. Sofia Spyridonidou & Georgia Sismani & Eva Loukogeorgaki & Dimitra G. Vagiona & Hagit Ulanovsky & Daniel Madar, 2021. "Sustainable Spatial Energy Planning of Large-Scale Wind and PV Farms in Israel: A Collaborative and Participatory Planning Approach," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-23, January.
    13. Leung, Lawrence C. & Cao, Dong, 2001. "On the efficacy of modeling multi-attribute decision problems using AHP and Sinarchy," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 132(1), pages 39-49, July.
    14. Rhoma Dwi Aria Yuliantri & Anggit Darmatadara, 2015. "Political Battle of Mass Media Critical Discourse Analysis: Suara Partai Masjumi Magazine and Bintang Merah Magazine in 1951," European Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies Articles, Revistia Research and Publishing, vol. 1, ejis_v1_i.
    15. Garbuzova-Schlifter, Maria & Madlener, Reinhard, 2016. "AHP-based risk analysis of energy performance contracting projects in Russia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 559-581.
    16. Bernasconi, Michele & Choirat, Christine & Seri, Raffaello, 2014. "Empirical properties of group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP: Theory and evidence," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 232(3), pages 584-592.
    17. Ardalan Bafahm & Minghe Sun, 2019. "Some Conflicting Results in the Analytic Hierarchy Process," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(02), pages 465-486, March.
    18. Jicang Xu & Linlin Li & Ming Ren, 2022. "A Hybrid ANP Method for Evaluation of Government Data Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-32, January.
    19. Bentes, Alexandre Veronese & Carneiro, Jorge & da Silva, Jorge Ferreira & Kimura, Herbert, 2012. "Multidimensional assessment of organizational performance: Integrating BSC and AHP," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 65(12), pages 1790-1799.
    20. Amelia Bilbao-Terol & Mariano Jiménez & Mar Arenas-Parra, 2016. "A group decision making model based on goal programming with fuzzy hierarchy: an application to regional forest planning," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 245(1), pages 137-162, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:14:p:8554-:d:861836. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.