Representativeness of personality and involvement preferences in a web-based survey on healthcare decision-making

Abstract Background Obtaining a sample that is representative of the group of interest is of utmost importance in questionnaire studies. In a survey using a state authorized web-portal for citizen communication with authorities, we wanted to investigate the view of adult men on patient involvement in health care decision-making regarding Prostate-Specific Antigen test for prostatic cancer. In this paper, we report on sample characteristics and representativeness of our sample in terms of personality and baseline involvement preferences. Methods We compared personality profiles (BFI-10) and baseline healthcare decision-making preferences (CPS) in our sample (n = 6756) to internationally available datasets. Pooled data from a) US, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand (n = 1512), b) Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland, and Belgium (n = 1136), and c) Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark (n = 1313) were used for BFI-10 comparisons. Regarding CPS, we compared our sample with three previous datasets relating to decision-making in cancer (n = 425, 387, and 199). Results Although statistically significant differences particularly appeared in large dataset comparisons, sample BFI-10 and CPS profiles mostly were within the range of those previously reported. Similarity was greatest in BFI-10 comparisons with group a) where no statistically significant difference could be established in factors ‘agreeableness’ and ‘neuroticism’ (p = .095 and .578, respectively). Conclusion Despite some variation, our sample displays personality and baseline preference profiles that are generally similar to those described in previous international studies. For example, this was the case with the BFI-10 ‘agreeableness’ measure (incl. trust and fault-finding items), an important factor in healthcare decision-making.

Download Full-text

Representativeness of personality and involvement preferences in a web-based survey on healthcare decision-making

10.21203/rs.3.rs-27839/v3 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Søren Birkeland ◽

Thea Linkhorst ◽

Anders Haakonsson ◽

Michael John Barry ◽

Sören Möller

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Specific Antigen ◽

International Studies ◽

Healthcare Decision ◽

Personality Profiles ◽

Prostate Specific Antigen Test ◽

Healthcare Decision Making ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Baseline Preference ◽

Questionnaire Studies

Abstract Background: Obtaining a sample that is representative of the group of interest is of utmost importance in questionnaire studies. In a survey using a state authorized web-portal for citizen communication with authorities, we wanted to investigate the view of adult men on patient involvement in health care decision-making regarding Prostate-Specific Antigen test for prostatic cancer. In this paper, we report on sample characteristics and representativeness of our sample in terms of personality and baseline involvement preferences.Methods: We compared personality profiles (BFI-10) and baseline healthcare decision-making preferences (CPS) in our sample (n=6,756) to internationally available datasets. Pooled data from a) US, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand (n=1,512), b) Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland, and Belgium (n=1,136), and c) Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark (n=1,313) were used for BFI-10 comparisons. Regarding CPS, we compared our sample with three previous datasets relating to decision-making in cancer (n=425, 387, and 199).Results: Although statistically significant differences particularly appeared in large dataset comparisons, sample BFI-10 and CPS profiles mostly were within the range of those previously reported. Similarity was greatest in BFI-10 comparisons with group a) where no statistically significant difference could be established in factors ‘agreeableness’ and ‘neuroticism’ (p=.095 and .578, respectively). Conclusion: Despite some variation, our sample displays personality and baseline preference profiles that are generally similar to those described in previous international studies. For example, this was the case with the BFI-10 ‘agreeableness’ measure (incl. trust and fault-finding items), an important factor in healthcare decision-making.

Download Full-text

Representativeness of Personality and Involvement Preferences in a Web-Based Survey on Healthcare Decision-Making

10.21203/rs.3.rs-27839/v1 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Søren Birkeland ◽

Thea Linkhorst ◽

Anders Haakonsson ◽

Michael John Barry ◽

Sören Möller

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Specific Antigen ◽

International Studies ◽

Healthcare Decision ◽

Personality Profiles ◽

Prostate Specific Antigen Test ◽

Healthcare Decision Making ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Baseline Preference ◽

Questionnaire Studies

Abstract Background: Obtaining a sample that is representative of the group of interest is of utmost importance in questionnaire studies. In a survey using a state authorized web-portal for citizen communication with authorities, we wanted to investigate the view of adult men on patient involvement in health care decision-making regarding Prostate-Specific Antigen test for prostatic cancer. In this paper, we report on sample characteristics and representativeness of our sample in terms of personality and baseline involvement preferences.Methods: We compared personality profiles (BFI-10) and baseline healthcare decision-making preferences (CPS) in our sample (n = 6,756) to internationally available datasets. Pooled data from a) US, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand (n = 1,512), b) Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland, and Belgium (n = 1,136), and c) Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark (n = 1,313) were used for BFI-10 comparisons. Regarding CPS, we compared our sample with three previous datasets relating to decision-making in cancer (n = 425, 387, and 199).Results: Although statistically significant differences particularly appeared in large dataset comparisons, sample BFI-10 and CPS profiles mostly were within the range of those previously reported. Similarity was greatest in BFI-10 comparisons with group a) where no statistically significant difference could be established in factors ‘agreeableness’ and ‘neuroticism’ (p = .095 and .578, respectively).Conclusion: Despite some variation, our sample displays personality and baseline preference profiles that are generally similar to those described in previous international studies. For example, this was the case with the BFI-10 ‘agreeableness’ measure (incl. trust and fault-finding items), an important factor in healthcare decision-making.

Download Full-text

Representativeness of personality and involvement preferences in a web-based survey on healthcare decision-making

10.21203/rs.3.rs-27839/v2 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Søren Birkeland ◽

Thea Linkhorst ◽

Anders Haakonsson ◽

Michael John Barry ◽

Sören Möller

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Specific Antigen ◽

International Studies ◽

Healthcare Decision ◽

Personality Profiles ◽

Prostate Specific Antigen Test ◽

Healthcare Decision Making ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Baseline Preference ◽

Questionnaire Studies

Download Full-text

Faculty Opinions recommendation of Older Adults' Recognition of Trade-Offs in Healthcare Decision-Making.

Faculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature ◽

10.3410/f.725639466.793512980 ◽

2016 ◽

Author(s):

Nanette Wenger

Keyword(s):

Older Adults ◽

Decision Making ◽

Healthcare Decision ◽

Trade Offs ◽

Healthcare Decision Making

Download Full-text

Comparative effectiveness research in the USA: when will there be an impact on healthcare decision-making?

Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research ◽

10.2217/cer.0018 ◽

2016 ◽

Author(s):

Kimberly D Westrich ◽

Jess A Wilhelm ◽

Claudia L Schur

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Comparative Effectiveness Research ◽

Comparative Effectiveness ◽

Effectiveness Research ◽

Healthcare Decision ◽

Healthcare Decision Making ◽

The Usa

Download Full-text

Nursing Home Staff’s Perceptions of Healthcare Decision Making for Unbefriended Residents

Innovation in Aging ◽

10.1093/geroni/igaa057.1237 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 4 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 384-384

Author(s):

Hyejin Kim ◽

Molly Perkins ◽

Thaddeus Pope ◽

Patricia Comer ◽

Mi-Kyung Song

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Geographic Area ◽

Care Physician ◽

Healthcare Decision ◽

Do Not Resuscitate ◽

Best Interest ◽

Care Plans ◽

Course Of Action ◽

Healthcare Decision Making ◽

Facility Level

Abstract ‘Unbefriended’ adults are those who lack decision-making capacity and have no surrogates or advance care plans. Little data exist on nursing homes (NHs)’ healthcare decision-making practices for unbefriended residents. This study aimed to describe NH staff’s perceptions of healthcare decision making on behalf of unbefriended residents. Sixty-six staff including administrators, physicians, nurses, and social workers from three NHs in one geographic area of Georgia, USA participated in a 31-item survey. Their responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics and conventional content analysis. Of 66 participants, eleven had been involved in healthcare decision-making for unbefriended residents. The most common decision was do-not-resuscitate orders. Decisions primarily were made by relying on the resident’s primary care physician and/or discussing within a facility interdisciplinary team. Key considerations in the decision-making process included “evidence that the resident would not have wanted further treatment” and the perception that “further treatment would not be in the resident’s best interest”. Compared with decision making for residents with surrogates, participants perceived decision making for unbefriended residents to be equally-more difficult. Key barriers to making decisions included uncertainty regarding what the resident would have wanted in the given situation and concerns regarding the ethically and legally right course of action. Facilitators (reported by 52 participants) included some information/knowledge about the resident, an understanding regarding decision-making-related law/policy, and facility-level support. The findings highlight the complexity and difficulty of healthcare decision making for unbefriended residents and suggest more discussions among all key stakeholders to develop practical strategies to support decision-making practices in NHs.

Download Full-text

Perceived Financial Insecurity Impacts Healthcare Decision‐Making Among Patients With Sinusitis

The Laryngoscope ◽

10.1002/lary.29561 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Vivek C. Pandrangi ◽

Nyssa Fox Farrell ◽

Jess C. Mace ◽

Kara Y. Detwiller ◽

Timothy L. Smith ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Healthcare Decision ◽

Healthcare Decision Making

Download Full-text

307 - Exploratory Study on Healthcare Decision-Making Capacity Assessment

International Psychogeriatrics ◽

10.1017/s1041610220002070 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 32 (S1) ◽

pp. 65-65

Author(s):

Ana Saraiva Amaral ◽

Rosa Marina Afonso ◽

Mário R. Simões ◽

Sandra Freitas

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Content Analysis ◽

Focus Groups ◽

Exploratory Study ◽

Assessment Instrument ◽

Funding Agency ◽

Capacity Assessment ◽

Healthcare Decision ◽

Healthcare Decision Making ◽

Decision Making Capacity

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) prevalence is expected to continue to increase, due to the population ageing. MCI and AD may impact patients’ decision-making capacities, which should be assessed through the disease course. These medical conditions can affect the various areas of decision-making capacity in different ways. Decision-making capacity in healthcare is particularly relevant among this population. Elders often suffer from multimorbidity and are frequently asked to make healthcare decisions, which can vary from consenting a routine diagnostic procedure to decide receiving highly risk treatments.To assess this capacity in elders with MCI or AD, we developed the Healthcare Decision-Making Capacity Assessment Instrument (IACTD-CS - Instrumento de Avaliação da Capacidade de Tomada de Decisão em Cuidados de Saúde). This project is funded by Portuguese national funding agency for science, research and technology, FCT (SFRH/BD/139344/2018). IACTD-CS was developed based on Appelbaum and Grisso four abilities model, literature review and review of international assessment instruments. After IACTD-CS first version development, an exploratory study with focus groups was conducted. This study included focus groups with healthcare professionals and nursing homes’ professionals.The focus groups main goals were: 1) understand the participants perception regarding healthcare decision-making capacity, 2) distinguish relevant aspects of decision-making, 3) discuss the abilities and items included in IACTD-CS and 4) identify new aspects or items to be added to IACTD-CS. A content analysis of the focus groups results, with resource to MAXQDA, was conducted afterwards. This exploratory study allowed to identify professionals’ perceptions on healthcare decision-making and its results were a significant contribute to IACTD-CS development. The proposed communication aims to describe the methodology used and present the results of content analysis.

Download Full-text